GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2001 INTERCOLLEGIATE 

ATHLETICS

Four-Year Colleges’ 

Experiences Adding 

and Discontinuing 

Teams

GAO-01-297

Page 1 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 32

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 35

Related GAO Products 36

Tables Table 1: Change in Number of Women Participants for NAIA and 

NCAA Schools 9

Table 2: Change in Number of Men Participants for NAIA and NCAA 

Schools 10

Table 3: Change in Number of Women’s Teams for NAIA and

NCAA Schools 12

Table 4: Change in Number of Men’s Teams for NAIA and NCAA 

Schools 13

Table 5: Percentage of 4-Year Schools Adding and Discontinuing 

Intercollegiate Sports Teams, School Years 1992–93 to 

1999–2000 16

Table 6: Per-School Average Estimated Percentage Change in Total 

Intercollegiate Athletic Expenditures From the Most Recent 

Addition or Discontinuation of a Team 21

Table 7: Average Estimated Percentage Change in Total 

Intercollegiate Athletic Expenditures From Recent 

Additions or Discontinuations of Selected Teams 22

Table 8: Funding Sources Used by Schools That Added Teams 

Without Discontinuing Others 26

Table 9: Selected Characteristics of Schools Visited 27

Table 10: Factors Facilitating Athletic Program Expansion at the 

Schools Visited 28

Figures Figure 1: Estimated Numbers of Participants in Intercollegiate

Athletics at 4-Year Colleges and Universities, School 

Years 1981–82 Through 1998–99 8

Figure 2: Number of Schools Adding and Discontinuing Men’s and 

Women’s Intercollegiate Sports Teams, School Years 

1992–93 to 1999–2000 15

Figure 3: Factors Reported by Schools That Greatly or Very Greatly 

Affected the Decision to Add Teams 17
Contents

Page 2 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Figure 4: Factors Reported by Schools That Greatly or Very Greatly 

Affected the Decision to Discontinue Teams 19

Abbreviations

NAIA National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics

NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association
Page 3 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548 Letr

March 8, 2001

The Honorable James Jeffords

Chairman

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

United States Senate

The Honorable Edward Kennedy

Ranking Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

United States Senate

The Honorable John Boehner

Chairman

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable George Miller

Ranking Democratic Member

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

About 400,000 American undergraduate college and university students 

participate in intercollegiate athletics each year. During the last 2 decades, 

the number of college athletes and the sports in which they participate 

have changed markedly. Colleges and universities across the country have 

added many sports teams and discontinued others. In response to these 

changes, the Congress included provisions in the Higher Education 

Amendments of 1998 that require GAO to study participation in athletics, 

including schools’ decisions to add or discontinue sports teams. While the 

mandate also required information on high school and 2-year college 

athletics, because of limited readily available information and the difficulty 

of collecting comparable information from these schools, as agreed with 

your offices, we focused only on 4-year intercollegiate athletics. This report 

answers the following questions:

• How did the number of men’s and women’s intercollegiate sports 

participants and teams at 4-year colleges and universities change in the 

2 decades since the1981–82 school year?

• How many colleges and universities added and discontinued teams 

since the 1992–93 school year, and what influenced their most recent 

decisions to add and discontinue teams?
Page 4 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

• How did colleges and universities make and implement decisions to 

discontinue intercollegiate sports teams?

• When colleges and universities added teams, what types of strategies 

did they use to avoid discontinuing sports teams or severely reducing 

their funding?

To determine changes in the numbers of participants and teams at 4-year 

colleges and universities, we obtained statistics from the two largest 

national intercollegiate sports associations for 4-year colleges and 

universities—the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the 

National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA). Information for 

these schools covered 18 years—school years 1981–82 through 1998–99. 

Although these data are unverified, they are widely used by researchers to 

study this topic. To gather information to respond to the other questions, 

we sent a questionnaire covering the 1992–93 to 1999–2000 school years to 

athletic directors at all 1,310 4-year schools that belong to one of these two 

associations. We received responses from 91 percent of these schools. For 

detailed information on schools’ experiences in attempting to add sports 

teams without substantially reducing opportunities for other athletes, we 

also visited four colleges and universities. For details about our scope and 

methodology, see appendix I. Our work was done between February and 

December 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards.

Results in Brief The number of women participating in intercollegiate athletics at 4-year 

colleges and universities increased substantially—from 90,000 to 163,000—

between school years 1981–82 and 1998–99, while the number of men 

participating increased more modestly—from 220,000 to 232,000. Women’s 

athletic participation grew at more than twice the rate of their growth in 

undergraduate enrollment, while men’s participation more closely matched 

their growth in undergraduate enrollment. The total number of women’s 

teams increased from 5,695 to 9,479, a gain of 3,784 teams, compared to an 

increase from 9,113 to 9,149 teams for men, a gain of 36 teams. By 1998–99, 

women had 330 more teams than men. For both men and women, soccer 

had the largest net gain in the number of teams. Not all sports saw net 

gains. Several women’s sports and more than a dozen men’s sports 

experienced net decreases in the number of teams. For women, the largest 

net decreases in number of teams occurred in gymnastics; for men, the 

largest decreases were in wrestling.
Page 5 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

In all, 963 schools added teams and 307 discontinued teams since 1992–93. 

Most were able to add teams—usually women’s teams—without 

discontinuing any teams. Among the colleges and universities that added a 

women’s team, the two factors cited most often as greatly influencing the 

decision were the need to address student interest in particular sports and 

the need to meet gender equity goals or requirements. Similarly, schools 

that discontinued a men’s team cited a lack of student interest in the sport 

and gender equity concerns as the factors greatly influencing their 

decision, as well as the need to reallocate the athletic budget to other 

sports. The relative importance of these factors varied by size of the 

athletic program. For example, in schools with large intercollegiate sports 

programs, meeting gender equity goals and requirements was the factor 

most often cited as influencing decisions to discontinue men’s teams, while 

in schools with small programs, lack of student interest was cited most 

often. 

Colleges and universities that discontinued a team typically took 3 months 

or less between originating the proposal and making the final decision. 

Most schools informed the members of the campus community of the 

possibility that the team would be discontinued, and most held meetings 

with campus groups before making the final decision. Schools with large 

athletic programs were more likely to include groups such as alumni. Most 

schools offered to help affected athletes transfer to other schools, and 

students receiving athletics-related financial aid—particularly students at 

larger schools—continued to receive financial aid for at least some period 

after the team was disbanded.

Schools that were able to add one or more teams without discontinuing 

others used a variety of strategies to increase athletic program revenue and 

contain costs. Schools with smaller athletic programs typically relied on 

additional support from the institution’s general fund, while those with 

larger programs more often used revenue from other sources, such as 

donations from private sources and athletic facility rental fees. Schools we 

visited also sought to contain costs by, for example, hiring a coach who 

assumed teaching responsibilities to replace a full-time faculty member.

We provided the Department of Education a draft of this report for 

comment, and it did not provide comments.

Background Although intercollegiate sports may bring to mind nationally televised 

football and basketball games, 4-year schools’ intercollegiate sports 
Page 6 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

programs vary widely, from small programs involving fewer than 10 teams 

with expenditures of less than $1 million to large programs with more than 

900 student-athletes and expenditures in excess of $50 million. At many 

schools, intercollegiate athletic competition serves primarily to meet the 

needs of student-athletes—to give them opportunities to develop their 

athletic ability as they pursue their courses of study. Schools also view 

intercollegiate athletics as a means of recruiting prospective students. At 

schools with large athletic programs, sports serve as an important focal 

point for students, faculty and staff, alumni, surrounding communities, and 

the national television audience. 

Typically, schools with the largest number of athletic programs and 

facilities belong to Division I-A of the NCAA, and those with smaller 

programs are members of NCAA Divisions II or III or the second major 

national collegiate association, NAIA. Most 4-year postsecondary 

institutions with intercollegiate athletic programs participate in one of 

these two associations. NCAA, the larger, administers intercollegiate 

athletics for over 1,000 4-year (baccalaureate degree-granting) schools. 

Division I member schools are further divided into three categories—I-A, IAA, and I-AAA—with those that have larger football programs generally 

placed in I-A and those without football programs in I-AAA. Division I-AA 

schools sponsor football but are not subject to the spectator attendance 

requirements that apply to Division I-A schools. In April 2000, NAIA 

consisted of 330 member institutions. The NAIA does not have divisions 

except for basketball and football, which each have Divisions I and II. 

Although no federal monies fund intercollegiate sports programs, federal 

involvement has arisen in part as a result of civil rights legislation. For 

example, at schools receiving federal financial assistance, all education 

programs and activities—including intercollegiate athletic programs—are 

subject to title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of sex.1

 Federal regulations implementing title 

IX require that men and women be provided equitable opportunities to 

participate in intercollegiate athletics, and equitable scholarships, facilities, 

equipment, supplies, and other benefits.2

 The Department of Education’s 

1

20 U.S.C. 1681-1688.

2

For details, see 34 CFR 106.41; Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 

Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance: The Three-Part Test (Jan. 16, 

1996); and Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Dear Colleague letter from 

Norma Cantu regarding athletic scholarships (Jul. 23, 1998).
Page 7 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Office for Civil Rights assesses schools’ compliance with these 

requirements. To comply with requirements concerning equitable 

opportunities to participate in intercollegiate sports, schools must meet 

any one of the three following criteria, which Education refers to as parts 

of a three-part test: (1) intercollegiate-level participation opportunities for 

male and female students are provided in numbers substantially 

proportionate to their respective enrollments, or (2) the institution can 

show a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is 

demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the 

members of the underrepresented gender, or (3) it can be demonstrated 

that the interests and abilities of the members of the underrepresented 

gender have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present 

program.3

Women Made 

Substantial Gains in 

Intercollegiate Sports 

Participation

Since the early 1980s, the number of women participating in intercollegiate 

sports has increased substantially. Although male athletes still outnumber 

their female counterparts, the growth in their programs has been much 

smaller and the number of women’s teams now exceeds the number of 

men’s teams. The percentage of male undergraduates who participate in 

intercollegiate athletics is essentially the same as it was in 1981–82, while 

the percentage of women has increased considerably.

Gap Between Female and 

Male Participants Has 

Narrowed

The rapid growth in women’s participation in intercollegiate sports since 

1981–82 has narrowed the gap between genders (see fig. 1). The number of 

women in intercollegiate sports increased by 81 percent (from 90,000 to 

163,000 participants) and the number of men increased by 5 percent (from 

220,000 to 232,000 participants) between 1981–82 and 1998–99. The growth 

in women’s participation was fastest during the early 1980s and in the 

1990s. Men’s participation also grew in the early 1980s, but peaked in 

1985–86. Since then, it decreased modestly, then fluctuated within a narrow 

range. 

3

The term “participation opportunities” in part one of the three-part test refers to the 

number of athletes on each team, not numbers of teams. For more information concerning 

the three-part test and Office for Civil Rights enforcement of title IX, see Gender Equity: 

Men’s and Women’s Participation in Higher Education (GAO-01-128, Dec. 15, 2000). 
Page 8 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Figure 1: Estimated Numbers of Participants in Intercollegiate Athletics at 4-Year Colleges and Universities, School Years 1981– 82 Through 1998–99

Note: Intercollegiate athletic participants represent the sum of the number of athletes on each team at 

each school. The number of participants is overstated to the extent that some athletes participate on 

more than one team and some schools are members of both NAIA and NCAA.

Source: GAO analysis of NCAA and NAIA participation statistics. 

The growth in the number of women athletes may reflect, in part, the rapid 

increase in women’s undergraduate enrollment. From 1981–82 to 1998–99 

women’s undergraduate enrollment grew by 30 percent, compared to 6 

percent for men. However, women’s participation also grew as an overall 

percentage of women undergraduates. Women athletes made up 3.9 

percent of women undergraduates in 1981–82 and 5.5 percent in 1998–99. In 

Thousands

Men

Women

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1981-821982-831983-841984-851985-861986-871987-881988-891989-901990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-99
Page 9 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

contrast, the portion of undergraduate men participating in athletics 

remained relatively steady, starting and ending the period at 9.3 percent.4

The trends in the number of women participants varied by sport. For 

example, table 1 shows that the biggest increase in the number of women 

participants—about 18,000—was in soccer. Though participation increased 

in most sports, five sports reported decreases in participation. The biggest 

decline occurred in gymnastics, with nearly 700 fewer women gymnasts in 

1998–99 than in 1981–82. 

Table 1: Change in Number of Women Participants for NAIA and NCAA Schools 

4

These participation rates were calculated using full-time undergraduate enrollment figures 

for fall 1998 at all 4-year colleges and universities whether or not they were members of 

NCAA or NAIA. 

Sport 1981–82 1998–99

Change in

number of

participants

Percentage

change

Soccer 1,855 19,987 18,132 977%

Indoor track 6,026 15,927 9,901 164

Outdoor track 11,933 19,611 7,678 64

Cross-country 5,560 13,048 7,488 135

Softball 10,816 17,320 6,504 60

Rowing 1,187 5,628 4,441 374

Basketball 12,699 17,118 4,419 35

Volleyball 11,762 15,603 3,841 33

Swimming 6,570 10,086 3,516 54

Golf 1,060 3,140 2,080 196

Lacrosse 2,648 4,749 2,101 79

Tennis 7,849 9,319 1,470 19

Water polo 19 746 727 3,826

Ice hockey 336 900 564 168

Equestrian 101 633 532 527

Skiing 359 535 176 49

Squash 238 365 127 53

Rifle 90 184 94 104

Synchronized swimming 49 108 59 120
Page 10 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Note: Athletes who participate in more than one intercollegiate sport are counted as participants in 

each sport. Information for schools that were members of both NAIA and NCAA was counted only 

once to avoid overstating the number of participants at these schools. This table excludes sports that 

were neither championship nor emerging NCAA sports in 1998–99. In 1981–82, this represented 222 

participants in six sports—cricket, judo, pistol, polo, rugby, and sailing.

Source: GAO analysis of NCAA and NAIA participation statistics.

In men’s sports, increases and decreases were more evenly balanced, with 

increases in the number of participants in 14 sports and decreases in 12. As 

shown in table 2, the greatest increase in numbers of participants occurred 

in football, with about 7,200 more players. Football also had the greatest 

number of participants—approximately 60,000, or about twice as many as 

the next largest sport. Wrestling experienced the largest decrease in 

participation—a drop of more than 2,600 participants.

Table 2: Change in Number of Men Participants for NAIA and NCAA Schools 

Archery 75 106 31 41

Badminton 141 94 -47 -33

Bowling 88 20 -68 -77

Fencing 765 594 -171 -22

Field hockey 5,701 5,472 -229 -4

Gymnastics 2,173 1,490 -683 -31

Total 90,100 162,783 72,683 81%

Sport 1981–82 1998–99

Change in

number of

participants

Percentage

change

Football 53,213 60,412 7,199 14%

Baseball 24,329 29,781 5,452 22

Indoor track 15,568 17,605 2,037 13

Lacrosse 4,193 6,193 2,000 48

Soccer 19,647 21,579 1,932 10

Basketball 17,368 18,920 1,552 9

Rowing 2,053 2,444 391 19

Equestrian 20 371 351 1,755

Volleyball 878 1,124 246 28

Sailing 243 288 45 19

(Continued From Previous Page)

Sport 1981–82 1998–99

Change in

number of

participants

Percentage

change
Page 11 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Note: Athletes who participate in more than one intercollegiate sport are counted as participants in 

each sport. Information for schools that were members of both NAIA and NCAA was counted only 

once to avoid overstating the number of participants at these schools. This table excludes sports that 

were neither championship nor emerging NCAA sports in 1998–99. In 1981–82, this represented 836 

participants in 11 sports—boxing, cricket, 150-pound football, judo, pistol, polo, rugby, softball, 

trap/skeet, ultimate Frisbee, and weightlifting.

Source: GAO analysis of NCAA and NAIA participation statistics.

Women’s Teams Outnumber 

Men’s Teams

Though the number of male participants was greater than the number of 

female participants in 1998–99, there were 330 more women’s teams than 

men’s teams. The average women’s team had fewer athletes than the 

average men’s team. From 1981–82 to 1998–99, the number of women’s 

intercollegiate sports teams increased by 66 percent (from 5,695 to 9,479 

teams). Most sports saw an increase in the number of teams, with the 

largest increase occurring in women’s soccer, where the number of teams 

rose from 80 to 926. The greatest decrease occurred in gymnastics, where 

the number of teams fell from 190 to 90 (see table 3).

Bowling 103 142 39 38

Golf 8,935 8,977 42 Less than 1

Archery 60 63 3 5

Squash 346 347 1 Less than 1

Badminton 38 26 -12 -32

Water polo 1,002 907 -95 -9

Ice hockey 3,831 3,702 -129 -3

Cross-country 12,158 12,007 -151 -1

Skiing 856 574 -282 -33

Rifle 779 343 -436 -56

Fencing 1,419 646 -773 -54

Swimming 8,582 7,639 -943 -11

Gymnastics 1,397 375 -1,022 -73

Tennis 9,960 8,555 -1,405 -14

Outdoor track 23,986 22,280 -1,706 -7

Wrestling 9,214 6,566 -2,648 -29

Total 220,178 231,866 11,688 5%

(Continued From Previous Page)

Sport 1981–82 1998–99

Change in

number of

participants

Percentage

change
Page 12 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Table 3: Change in Number of Women’s Teams for NAIA and NCAA Schools

Note: Information about participants at schools that were members of both NAIA and NCAA was 

counted only once to avoid overstating the number of teams sponsored by these schools. This table 

excludes sports that were neither championship nor emerging NCAA sports in 1998–99. In 1981–82, 

this represented 18 teams in six sports—cricket, judo, pistol, polo, rugby, and sailing.

Source: GAO analysis of NCAA and NAIA participation statistics.

Half of men’s sports saw a decline in the number of teams. Two sports had 

no change and the remaining sports (nearly half) had an increase in the 

number of teams. As with women’s sports, the largest increase came in 

Sport 1981–82 1998–99

Change in

number of

teams

Percentage

change

Soccer 80 926 846 1,058%

Cross-country 496 1,012 516 104

Softball 555 987 432 78

Volleyball 812 1,162 350 43

Indoor track 288 592 304 106

Basketball 910 1,212 302 33

Golf 125 402 277 222

Tennis 735 983 248 34

Outdoor track 524 767 243 46

Lacrosse 105 213 108 103

Swimming 364 465 101 28

Rowing 43 122 79 184

Water polo 1 37 36 3,600

Equestrian 7 41 34 486

Rifle 16 44 28 175

Ice hockey 17 40 23 135

Skiing 33 44 11 33

Squash 16 27 11 69

Synchronized swimming 3 7 4 133

Badminton 11 10 -1 -9

Archery 9 6 -3 -33

Bowling 11 5 -6 -55

Field hockey 268 240 -28 -10

Fencing 76 45 -31 -41

Gymnastics 190 90 -100 -53

Total 5,695 9,479 3,784 66%
Page 13 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

soccer (135 new teams). Football, the sport that saw the largest increase in 

the number of participants, saw a decrease of 37 teams, mainly from NAIA 

schools. Gymnastics, fencing, and rifle saw the largest percentage decline 

in the number of teams. The largest decrease in the number of teams was in 

wrestling (171 teams) (see table 4). 

Table 4: Change in Number of Men’s Teams for NAIA and NCAA Schools

Sport 1981–82 1998–99

Change in

number of

teams

Percentage

change

Soccer 744 879 135 18%

Baseball 926 1,011 85 9

Basketball 1,127 1,209 82 7

Golf 805 867 62 8

Lacrosse 138 197 59 43

Cross-country 916 947 31 3

Equestrian 2 33 31 1,550

Indoor track 533 558 25 5

Rowing 48 70 22 46

Volleyball 63 79 16 25

Sailing 15 22 7 47

Squash 21 21 0 0

Badminton 4 4 0 0

Archery 7 6 -1 -14

Bowling 13 10 -3 -23

Water polo 49 43 -6 -12

Ice hockey 141 131 -10 -7

Skiing 55 40 -15 -27

Swimming 415 390 -25 -6

Outdoor track 762 735 -27 -4

Footballa 705 668 -37 -5

Fencing 79 37 -42 -53

Rifle 83 41 -42 -51

Gymnastics 82 26 -56 -68

Tennis 952 868 -84 -9

Wrestling 428 257 -171 -40

Total 9,113 9,149 36 0.4%
Page 14 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Note: Information for schools that were members of both NAIA and NCAA was counted only once to 

avoid overstating the number of teams sponsored by these schools. This table excludes sports that 

were neither championship nor emerging NCAA sports in 1998–99. In 1981–82, this represented 30 

teams in 11 sports—boxing, cricket, 150-pound football, judo, pistol, polo, rugby, softball, trap/skeet, 

ultimate Frisbee, and weightlifting.

a

Excludes 150-pound football.

Source: GAO analysis of NCAA and NAIA participation statistics.

Experiences Adding 

and Discontinuing 

Teams Varied Among 

Schools With DifferentSized Athletic 

Programs 

About 80 percent of schools added one or more women’s sports teams 

during the 1992–93 to 1999–2000 period, and more than two-thirds did so 

without discontinuing any teams. Student interest in a particular sport was 

often cited as an influence behind many of these decisions. Gender equity 

considerations also often influenced decisions to add women’s teams and 

discontinue men’s teams, particularly at schools with large athletic 

programs. The financial impact of adding or discontinuing teams varied 

widely by size of program and by sport. 

Most Schools Added 

Women’s Teams Without 

Discontinuing Teams

Overall, among the 1,191 college and universities responding to the 

questionnaire, 963 added at least one team and 307 discontinued at least 

one (see fig. 2). However, of the 948 schools that added one or more 

women’s teams, 72 percent did so without discontinuing any teams. Only 

about 16 percent of all respondents neither added nor discontinued a team 

from 1992–93 through 1999–2000. In total, schools added nearly three times 

as many women’s teams as men’s teams during this period—1,919 teams for 

women, compared with 702 for men. They discontinued more than twice as 

many men’s teams—386 teams for men, 150 for women. 
Page 15 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Figure 2: Number of Schools Adding and Discontinuing Men’s and Women’s 

Intercollegiate Sports Teams, School Years 1992–93 to 1999–2000

Note: Some schools both added and discontinued teams. Those schools are represented in both 

columns. 

Source: GAO survey of collegiate athletic directors. 

Schools with smaller programs were more likely to add men’s teams. Only 

about 3 percent of the schools with the largest intercollegiate athletic 

programs (NCAA Division I-A) added one or more men’s teams, compared 

with 39 percent for NCAA Division III schools and 54 percent of NAIA 

schools (see table 5).

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Add Discontinue

Men Only

Both

Women Only

557

391

15

35

88

184
Page 16 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Table 5: Percentage of 4-Year Schools Adding and Discontinuing Intercollegiate 

Sports Teams, School Years 1992–93 to 1999–2000 

Note: A total of 1,191 schools responded to the questionnaire, including 110 in NCAA Division I-A, 109 

in I-AA, 79 in I-AAA, 275 in II, 388 in III, and 281 in NAIA. The table includes data from 51 respondents 

whose schools were members of both NCAA and NAIA. Their responses are reflected both in the 

NAIA and applicable NCAA columns. 

Source: GAO survey of collegiate athletic directors.

Addition of Teams Often 

Influenced by Student 

Interest, Among Other 

Factors

The level of student interest was the factor schools cited most often as 

greatly or very greatly influencing their most recent decision to add both 

men’s and women’s teams (see fig. 3).5

 Overall, 52 percent of the 

respondents that had added a women’s sports team indicated that student 

interest was a great or very great influence in the decision, and nearly as 

many schools (47 percent) cited the need to meet gender equity goals or 

requirements. Other factors cited less frequently when adding a women’s 

team included the availability of adequate facilities and sufficient 

equipment, the growth in the number of teams to compete against, 

community interest, and enough improvement in a club team’s skill to 

compete at the varsity intercollegiate level. 6

Activity

NCAA division

NAIA

All

I-A I-AA I-AAA II III respondents

Add men’s team 3% 17% 29% 32% 39% 54% 34%

Add women’s team 88 93 81 72 79 80 80

Discontinue men’s 

team 32 25 35 27 18 19 23

Discontinue women’s 

team 6 6 5 13 9 15 10

5

Schools nearly always cited multiple factors as affecting their decision. Less than 5 percent 

cited only one factor; two-thirds of respondents cited four or more.

6

Club teams may compete with teams from other schools, but are not designated as varsity 

intercollegiate teams by the college or athletic association.
Page 17 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Figure 3: Factors Reported by Schools That Greatly or Very Greatly Affected the 

Decision to Add Teams

Source: GAO survey of collegiate athletic directors. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Other

Opportunity to

Reallocate Budget

to New Sport

Budget Increased

Conference

Requirement

Nongender Equity

Goals/Requirments

Club Team's

Skill Improved

Sufficient

Community Interest

Other Schools

Added Sport

Adequate Facilities

Gender Equity

Goals/Requirements

Sufficient

Student Interest

Men

Women

Percentage

49

52

4

47

32

30

11

21

23

19

11

12

6

12

15

10

12

9

0

7

10

17
Page 18 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

The factors that most influenced recent decisions to add women’s teams 

varied by the size of a school’s intercollegiate athletic programs. For 

example, respondents from NCAA Division I-A schools compared to 

Division III schools more often cited gender equity considerations (82 

percent versus 35 percent) and community interest (35 percent versus 12 

percent) as a great or very great influence. Division III schools cited the 

availability of adequate facilities and sufficient equipment (30 percent, 

compared with 24 percent in Division I-A.) Both types of schools cited 

student interest about as often (60 percent versus 55 percent).

For men’s sports, the pattern of which factors most influenced schools’

decisions to add a team was somewhat different, particularly with regard to 

gender equity goals or requirements. As was the case for the addition of 

women’s teams, student interest was the factor cited most often (49 

percent) as influencing the addition of men’s teams. After student interest, 

the factor cited most often was the availability of sufficient facilities and 

adequate equipment (32 percent), followed by community interest (23 

percent). Gender equity considerations, an influential factor for adding a 

women’s team, was cited by only 4 percent of schools that had added a 

men’s team.

Student Interest Also 

Among Factors That 

Influenced Decisions to 

Discontinue Teams 

The level of student interest was the most often cited factor in schools’

most recent decisions to discontinue men’s and women’s teams (see fig. 4). 

Among the 272 responding schools that discontinued a men’s team, 91 (33 

percent) cited lack of student interest as a great or very great influence, 83 

(31 percent) cited the need to meet gender equity goals or requirements, 

and 82 (30 percent) cited the need to reallocate budget resources to other 

sports. 
Page 19 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Figure 4: Factors Reported by Schools That Greatly or Very Greatly Affected the 

Decision to Discontinue Teams 

Source: GAO survey of collegiate athletic directors.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Other

Resources Needed

for Other Sports

Budget Decreased

Joined Conference That

Did Not Sponsor Sport

Nongender Equity

Goals/Requirments

Team Not Competitive

Insufficient

Community Interest

Other Schools

Discontinued Sport

Inadequate Facilities

Gender Equity

Goals/Requirements

Insufficient

Student Interest

Men

Women

Percentage

15

33

58

31

6

17

24

11

11

14

16

19

30

9

2

7

11

19

18

30

16

15
Page 20 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Factors affecting decisions to discontinue men’s teams varied with the size 

of a school’s program. Among schools with large intercollegiate athletic 

programs, gender equity considerations more often figured as a great or 

very great influence. At NCAA Division I-A schools, for example, a majority 

(54 percent) of the respondents discontinuing a men’s team cited gender 

equity considerations as a great or very great influence. Insufficient student 

interest in the sport was not often cited; only 6 percent of respondents 

cited it as a great or very great influence. In contrast, among NCAA Division 

III respondents, the absence of sufficient student interest in the sport was 

the most often-cited factor (44 percent cited it as a great or very great 

influence). The need to reallocate resources to other sports was the next 

most often-cited factor (cited by 26 percent), followed by decreases in the 

budget and gender equity considerations (each cited by 21 percent).7

Decisions to discontinue a women’s team were generally most often driven 

by the level of student interest. Of the 123 schools that discontinued one or 

more women’s teams, 58 percent cited the lack of student interest as a 

great or very great influence. The next most often-cited influences were the 

team’s inability to compete at the desired level and the absence of adequate 

facilities and sufficient equipment.

Adding and Discontinuing 

Teams Had Widely Varied 

Impact on Athletic Program 

Expenditures

The most recent addition of an intercollegiate team increased the average 

school’s total intercollegiate expenditures by an estimated 6 percent, and 

the most recent discontinuation of a team reduced expenditures by 4 

percent.8

 In general, schools with larger intercollegiate programs 

experienced smaller percentage changes in their expenditures, as shown in 

table 6. For example, adding a women’s team at the NCAA Division I-A level 

increased costs an average of 3 percent, compared to 5 percent for NCAA 

Division III and 9 percent for NAIA. The comparable averages for recent 

additions of men’s teams were 2, 8, and 13 percent. 

7

The proportion of schools citing gender equity goals and requirements as greatly or very 

greatly influencing the decision was 82, 81, 52, 49, 33, and 27 percent respectively for NCAA 

Division I-A, I-AA, I-AAA, II, III, and NAIA members that were not also members of NCAA. 

8

The median values for schools’ estimates were a 3-percent increase in expenditures by 

adding teams and a 1-percent decrease by discontinuing teams.
Page 21 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Table 6: Per-School Average Estimated Percentage Change in Total Intercollegiate Athletic Expenditures From the Most Recent 

Addition or Discontinuation of a Team

a

These are the average of schools’ total intercollegiate expenditures in the prior year. In some cases 

respondents indicated that their estimates applied to some expenditures but not to others. For 

example, some respondents provided figures for operating expenditures only. Figures do not include 

capital expenditures or debt service. In about 15 percent of cases respondents did not provide an 

estimate. In some cases schools begin incurring expenses, such as coaches’ salaries, for the new 

sport during the year proceeding the first year of intercollegiate competition.

b

The calculation is based on estimates from fewer than 10 respondents. 

Source: GAO survey of collegiate athletic directors.

The effect of adding or discontinuing a team also varied by sport (see table 

7). For example, schools estimated that adding women’s soccer typically 

increased expenditures by 6 percent, while adding football teams increased 

expenditures by an average of 31 percent. Discontinuing men’s tennis 

decreased expenditures by an average of 2 percent, while discontinuing 

football decreased expenditures an average of 24 percent.

Percentage increase (decrease) in expenditures

Most recent team added

Most recent team 

discontinued

College’s affiliation Men Women Men Women

Average expenditures (in

thousands)a

NCAA

 Division I-A 2b 3 (1) (1)b $14,266

 Division I-AA 6 3 (1) (0)b 4,371

 Division I-AAA 2 5 (4) (0)b 3,013

 Division II 7 4 (3) (5) 1,192

 Division III 8 5 (3) (3) 529

NAIA 13 9 (7) (6) 460

Total 

(all schools) 8 5 (4) (4) $2,712
Page 22 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Table 7: Average Estimated Percentage Change in Total Intercollegiate Athletic 

Expenditures From Recent Additions or Discontinuations of Selected Teams

a

These are the average of schools’ estimated percentage increase or decrease in total intercollegiate 

expenditures.

Source: GAO survey of collegiate athletic directors.

Schools Typically 

Discontinued Teams 

Quickly and Assisted 

Athletes in the 

Transition

The 307 responding schools that discontinued a team during the 1992–93 to 

1999–2000 period typically spent 3 months or less between making the 

proposal to discontinue a team and making a final decision. Most schools 

informed the campus community of the proposed discontinuation before 

the decision was final. Once the decision was made to discontinue a team, 

however, most did not provide a written explanation for their decision. 

Most schools held meetings to discuss the proposal with groups in the 

campus community. Schools with larger athletic programs more often 

included other interested parties, such as alumni or members of booster 

clubs. Affected athletes usually continued to receive athletic financial aid 

after the sport was discontinued.

Time Spent Making the 

Decision Was Generally 

Less Than 3 Months

Most decisions to discontinue a team were considered and implemented 

within a few months following the initial proposal, according to the 

responses from the colleges and universities concerning the team they 

Action taken

Average of percentage

increase (decrease) in

expendituresa

Number of

respondents

Added women’s soccer 6 228

Added women’s golf 2 116

Added women’s softball 7 101

Added women’s lacrosse 6 45

Added men’s golf 3 50

Added football 31 14

Discontinued men’s tennis (2) 39

Discontinued men’s wrestling (2) 38

Discontinued women’s tennis (7) 25

Discontinued men’s golf (2) 22

Discontinued men’s outdoor track (2) 21

Discontinued football (24) 11
Page 23 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

most recently discontinued during the 1992–93 to 1999–2000 period.9 The 

median of the reported amount of time between making such a proposal to 

reaching a final decision was 2 months. In 38 percent of cases, both the 

proposal and the final decision came in the same month. In about 5 percent 

of cases, the schools took more than a year to reach a final decision.10

The amount of time before the team stopped participating was also brief. 

For about one-third of the schools, the team had already stopped 

participating before the final decision to discontinue the sport was made. 

For another 26 percent, participation stopped during the month the final 

decision was made. For another 17 percent of the respondents, 

participation ended by the third month following the final decision. Only 

about 5 percent allowed sports teams to continue to play for a year or more 

past the time when a final decision was made.

In most cases the proposal to discontinue the team came from within the 

athletic department, although college administrations were a common 

source at schools with smaller athletic programs. About 60 percent said the 

proposal originated with the athletic department. At NCAA Division I-A 

schools, the figure was 83 percent. For NAIA and NCAA Division I-AAA 

schools, about one-third of the proposals originated from the school 

administration. For example, at NAIA schools that discontinued a sport, 

the athletic department initiated 46 percent of the proposals and school 

administration initiated 38 percent. Similarly, at NCAA Division I-AAA 

schools that discontinued a sport, athletic departments initiated 50 percent 

of the proposals and the school administration initiated another 36 percent.

Members of Campus 

Community Were Usually 

Involved Before the Final 

Decision Was Made

Most colleges and universities (186 of the 307 schools discontinuing a 

team) informed the campus community of the possibility of discontinuing 

the team before the decision was final. Large schools, such as those in 

NCAA Division I-A, were most likely to use a press release to inform the 

campus community of the possibility of discontinuing the sport. NCAA 

Division III schools more often provided the information by mail to 

individuals or used other means such as meetings with athletes and staff. 

9

Of the 307 cases in which a school discontinued a team, 84 discontinued both a men’s and a 

women’s team in the same month. We randomly selected either the men’s or the women’s 

team for analysis. In most cases these were men’s and women’s teams in the same sport.

10These calculations are based on usable responses from 243 of the 307 schools that 

discontinued a team during this period.
Page 24 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Most of the schools discontinuing a team (64 percent) informed affected 

athletes of the decision in the month it was finalized. About 20 percent of 

these schools indicated that they informed the affected athletes of the 

decision during the 3 months preceding the final decision. About 10 percent 

of these schools indicated that they informed the affected student athletes 

of a decision in the months following a final decision. Typically these 

schools informed the athletes within a month or two.11

Overall, less than half (41 percent) of schools that discontinued a sports 

team provided a written explanation. This varied somewhat by the size of 

schools’ athletic programs. NCAA Division I-A and I-AA schools were least 

likely to provide a written explanation to affected athletes; about onequarter of them did so. Members of NCAA Divisions II and III and NAIA 

were more likely to provide a written explanation; about half did so.

More than two-thirds of the schools that discontinued intercollegiate 

athletic teams did so without allowing an appeal of the decision. The 

proportion of schools allowing an appeal varied little by size of schools’

athletic programs—from a low of 25 percent among Division I-AA schools 

to a high of 36 percent among Division I-AAA schools.12 Several schools 

described their appeals process as a meeting with the athletic director. 

Most schools, however, described appeals as meetings with school 

administrators or organizational units outside the athletics department. For 

example, schools allowed student-athletes to appeal to the dean of 

students, athletic council, the school’s president, or the board of trustees. 

One respondent described an appeal involving an open forum at which all 

interested parties could speak; others provided opportunities for a written 

appeal. 

Assistance to Athletes Often 

Included Continued 

Financial Aid and Help in 

Transferring to Another 

School

About 80 percent of the schools (170 of the 212 responding schools that 

discontinued a team)—aside from Division III schools which are prohibited 

from providing athletic financial aid—indicated that they allowed their 

student-athletes to continue receiving aid even though the team was being 

discontinued. This was most often the case at NCAA Division I schools; 

continued aid was available at 90 percent of these schools. This was less 

11These calculations are based on responses from 167 schools that informed the campus 

community of the possibility of the discontinuation of the team in advance of a final 

decision.

12These calculations are based on responses from 291 schools.
Page 25 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

often the case at Division II schools, where 72 percent of schools indicated 

that student athletes could continue to receive aid. For about 86 percent of 

the schools that continued to provide assistance, the aid was available until 

the athlete graduated. At most of the rest, the aid was made available for up 

to 1 year. Among all NCAA and NAIA schools discontinuing a team, 86 

percent assisted affected athletes in transferring to another institution’s 

intercollegiate athletics program. However, affected athletes who remained 

enrolled at the school did not necessarily have the opportunity to compete 

in that sport at the club level. Only 41 percent gave the affected athletes 

that opportunity.13

Schools Pursued 

Creative Strategies to 

Build Athletic 

Programs Without 

Discontinuing Teams 

A majority of the 1,191 school officials reported that they have been able to 

add one or more teams without discontinuing others. They used a variety of 

strategies to do so, including obtaining funding from nonschool sources 

and finding ways to contain costs. The four schools we reviewed in depth 

used strategies that ranged from fundraising to awarding fewer 

scholarships.

Schools Relied More on 

Raising Revenue Than 

Cutting Costs

The 693 schools that added one or more intercollegiate athletic teams over 

the 1992–93 to 1999–2000 period without discontinuing a team did so more 

often by obtaining additional revenue than by containing costs and 

reallocating revenue. Sources of funds tended to vary with the size of the 

intercollegiate athletic program. As shown in table 8, NCAA Division I-A 

schools tended to rely on revenue from other sports and from outside 

sources. Schools with smaller programs, particularly those in NCAA 

Division III and NAIA, most often used additional funds from the 

institution’s general fund. In some cases, they reallocated existing 

resources by, for example, trimming travel expenses for all teams and using 

the savings to help fund the new team.

13These calculations are based on responses from 280 schools.
Page 26 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Table 8: Funding Sources Used by Schools That Added Teams Without 

Discontinuing Others

Source: GAO survey responses from 693 colleges and universities that added teams without 

discontinuing others. This included 63 in NCAA Division I-A, 72 in I-AA, 41 in I-AAA, 130 in Division II, 

243 in Division III, and 144 in NAIA.

Selected Schools Used a 

Range of Creative Strategies 

to Avoid Discontinuing 

Teams

For more detailed information concerning how schools added teams 

without discontinuing opportunities for athletes on other teams, we visited 

four colleges and universities to learn how they enhanced their athletic 

programs. We selected these four because they represented various sizes of 

schools and athletic programs, and different regions of the country (see 

table 9).14 They used combinations of innovative strategies that, as the 

survey reported, placed greater emphasis on increasing athletic revenue 

than on cutting costs in other programs. Fundraising strategies included 

renting out athletic facilities, and cost-containment approaches included 

trimming administrative expenditures. 

Percentage of schools obtaining funds through selected sources

NCAA division NAIA All

Source I-A I-AA I-AAA II III

General fund 37% 67% 63% 78% 83% 89% 77%

Other outside sources 62 50 46 45 14 30 33

Reducing expenses/reallocating 

funds 35 40 37 24 23 16 25

Revenue from other sports 71 36 27 18 2 10 18

Student activity fees 17 24 17 22 13 10 15

Endowment 14 6 2 5 4 5 5

Tuition waivers 19 4 10 2 0 2 4

State legislature 10 6 2 6 0 1 3

Other 3 11 5 5 5 7 6

14One of the four schools had discontinued one team, an indoor track team whose members 

all competed on other teams—cross-country or outdoor track. 
Page 27 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Table 9: Selected Characteristics of Schools Visited

a

Undergraduate enrollment is for the fall 1998 semester and includes full-time, baccalaureate degreeseeking students. 

b

The number of athletes is an unduplicated count in that athletes were counted only once, regardless 

of the number of sports teams in which they participated. 

Source: Equity in Athletic Disclosure Act Reports for school year1998–99 (maintained by each school) 

and responses from the four schools to GAO’s survey of collegiate athletic directors.

Though all four schools have unique characteristics, directors from each 

athletic program articulated factors that were key to facilitating successful 

program expansion without discontinuing teams. Table 10 lists these 

factors. All four schools cited the first three factors and two of the four 

schools cited the last factor. One of the athletic directors acknowledged, 

however, that a “one size fits all” approach may not be feasible and that 

these approaches may not apply to other schools.

NCAA Division I-A I-A I-AAA III

Location Midwest Southeast Mid-Atlantic Pacific Northwest

Type of school Public Public Public Private

Number of teams added 

from school year 

1992–93 to 1999–2000 4 3 4 3

Fall full-time 

undergraduate 

enrollmenta 42,000 15,000 10,000 2,000

Number of athletesb 932 374 363 238

Athletic department total 

expenditures $73 million $33 million $8 million $1 million

Athletically related 

student aid awarded Yes Yes Yes No

Athletic program 

generated net revenue Yes Yes No No

Football is part of the 

program Yes Yes No Yes
Page 28 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Table 10: Factors Facilitating Athletic Program Expansion at the Schools Visited

Athletic directors also identified several specific revenue-generating 

approaches for adding teams without discontinuing others.

Donations. The smaller Division I-A school revitalized a business 

relationship with the chief executive officer of a local private firm. This 

individual’s prominence, in turn, encouraged financial support from the 

rest of the business community. Substantial donations from fans and locally 

based corporations also enabled the school to add new teams and build 

facilities such as a new football stadium, a sports complex with a softball 

field, a track, a soccer field, and a planned Olympic-sized pool. Similarly, at 

the larger Division I-A school, large donations helped the school to add 

teams and increase the capacity of its football stadium, build a new 

basketball and ice hockey arena, and upgrade locker facilities. 

Rental fees. Another revenue-generating strategy was to rent out athletic 

facilities for other purposes and use the fees to expand the athletic 

program. For example, the football stadiums or basketball arenas at the 

Division I-A schools were used to host cultural and entertainment events 

such as concerts, or to serve as venues for prominent athletic events such 

Facilitating factor Example

President of institution or governing board is 

supportive of expanding athletic program 

without discontinuing sports teams.

The Division III school president takes an 

interest in gender equity in athletics. When 

the school planned to add women’s rowing, 

the president requested the addition of a 

men’s rowing team as well.

Athletic director’s philosophy emphasizes 

increasing participation opportunities for 

both men and women, and believing that 

what benefits one gender also benefits the 

other.

Adding women’s teams at the Division IAAA school resulted in increased support 

services, such as athletic trainers, that 

benefit men and women athletes alike. 

Officials are able to identify new funding 

sources.

The smaller Division I-A school financed the 

addition of three new teams and upgrades 

to the other 19 teams in part by employing 

innovative strategies such as placing a 

portion of athletic department funds in 

investments that earned better rates of 

return.

Athletic program enjoys support of fans and 

community. 

The single largest source of revenue at the 

larger Division I-A school is ticket sales from 

its football program. Football is considered 

an integral part of the university and the 

local community.
Page 29 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

as a World Cup soccer match. In addition, the smaller Division I-A school 

took advantage of its proximity to a prominent venue by letting the public 

use the football stadium parking lot to accommodate overflow event 

parking; the annual proceeds of $200,000 were all allocated to the women’s 

program. At the Division III school, local high school teams rented the 

football field for practice and special athletic events.

In addition to focusing on raising revenue, one athletic director told us that 

it was important to maintain flexibility in the use of funds available to the 

athletic department. For example, the larger Division I-A school’s athletic 

department requires that any earnings in excess of a specified rate of return 

on endowment funds designated for specific teams be available for general 

intercollegiate athletic department uses. This gives the athletic director 

greater flexibility in allocating resources. 

All four schools we visited also took various steps to reduce current or 

avoid incurring additional expenditures. These included the following 

strategies: 

• Recruiting most prospective student-athletes via telephone rather than 

in person,

• Denying requests for some teams to be elevated from club to varsity 

status,

• Replacing a retiring full-time faculty member with a coach who also 

assumed other administrative duties, 

• Limiting the size of the football team roster,

• Trimming administrative costs, 

• Not awarding the maximum number of scholarships allowed, and

• Limiting team travel outside the region to one trip every 2 to 3 years to 

minimize travel expenses.

Another cost-containment strategy involved establishing partnerships 

between the school and the local community. Such partnerships reflected 

the schools’ ability to capitalize on the unique characteristics of their 

geographic location. For example, the larger Division I-A school planned to 

undertake a cost-sharing project with the city and local school district to 

build a boathouse on a local river that would accommodate rowing teams 

from the university, high school, and general public. The smaller Division IA school teamed with a local hospital offering a nationally recognized 

sports medicine program. Through the arrangement, the hospital provides 

free services, including a portable medical facility at sports events and 

physical screenings for each athlete. The Division III school formed a 
Page 30 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

partnership with a locally based professional men’s basketball team. Under 

the agreement, the team was able to practice at the school’s basketball 

courts in exchange for funding a new hardwood floor for the courts and 

renovations to the men’s and women’s locker rooms.

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for 

comment, and it did not provide comments.

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Roderick R. Paige, 

Secretary of Education; appropriate congressional committees; 

representatives of NCAA and NAIA; and other interested parties. Please 

call me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions about this 

report. Key contacts and staff acknowledgments for this report are listed in 

appendix II. 

Marnie S. Shaul

Director, Education, Workforce, 

and Income Security
Page 31 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams
Page 32 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidxeiIs

As agreed with your offices, we focused our review of intercollegiate 

athletics on addressing the following questions: 

• How did the number of men’s and women’s intercollegiate sports 

participants and teams at 4-year colleges and universities change in the 

2 decades since the1981–82 school year?

• How many colleges and universities added and discontinued teams 

since the 1992–93 school year, and what influenced their most recent 

decisions to add and discontinue teams?

• How did colleges and universities make and implement decisions to 

discontinue intercollegiate sports?

• When colleges and universities added teams, what types of strategies 

did they use to avoid discontinuing sports teams or severely reducing 

their funding?

To determine the number of men’s and women’s intercollegiate sports 

participants and teams, we gathered participation statistics from the two 

largest 4-year intercollegiate athletic associations—the National 

Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) and the National Collegiate 

Athletic Association (NCAA). Some schools were members of both 

associations. For example, of the 787 NCAA members and 515 NAIA 

members in 1981–82, 117 were dual-membership schools. By 1998–99, 

NCAA had 1,041 members and NAIA had 339 members, 61 of which were 

dual members as of April 1999, according to the NCAA. Based on the 

number of teams and average team sizes, we estimated that these schools 

accounted for about 3 percent of male and 2 percent of female participants 

in 1997–98. Because dual-membership schools report their participation 

statistics to both associations, we counted their statistics only once to 

avoid double-counting the numbers of teams and participants. The adjusted 

participation statistics were used to calculate net change in number of 

teams, number of participants, and participation rates between 1981–82 

and 1998–99. To estimate rates of participation, we divided the total 

estimated number of participants for both associations by the estimated 

total number of full-time undergraduates enrolled at all 4-year institutions. 

To the extent that an individual student participated in more than one 

sport, our calculation of the number of participants may be overstated 

because these individuals are counted more than once in the statistics. In 

addition, some 4-year institutions are not members of either NAIA or 

NCAA, and they were excluded from our analyses. Although we did not 

verify the accuracy of the statistics provided by the NCAA and NAIA, they 

are the best available data and are widely used by researchers to study 

intercollegiate athletic participation. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 33 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

To respond to the other three questions, we developed and administered a 

questionnaire to gather information from athletic directors at all 4-year 

colleges and universities that were members of either the NAIA or NCAA. 

We pretested a draft questionnaire at six schools and subsequently revised 

it based on their comments. In May 2000, we mailed the final questionnaire 

to 1,310 institutions including 326 NAIA members and 1,040 NCAA 

members (both active and provisional members.) This included 56 4-year 

colleges and universities that were members of both NCAA and NAIA. By 

October 2000, we had received 1,191 usable questionnaire responses for an 

overall response rate of 91 percent. In some cases, however, respondents 

did not respond to all applicable questions. 

The questionnaire asked athletic directors for the total number of women’s 

and men’s intercollegiate sports teams added and discontinued during the 

1992–93 to 1999–2000 school-year period. When calculating the number of 

new teams added, we excluded teams that had not yet begun participating 

in intercollegiate competition by the end of the 1999–2000 school year. 

Similarly, when calculating the number of teams discontinued, we excluded 

teams whose last day of intercollegiate competition was after the end of the 

1999–2000 school year. We asked each school that added or discontinued a 

team to respond to additional questions concerning only the most recently 

added and most recently discontinued men’s and women’s sports teams. 

We reviewed athletic directors’ questionnaire responses for consistency 

and in many cases contacted them or their staff to resolve inconsistencies, 

but we did not otherwise verify the information provided in the 

questionnaire responses.

To identify types of strategies that colleges and universities used to avoid 

discontinuing sports teams or severely reducing their funding, we used the 

questionnaire to collect information on how schools paid for new teams. 

We analyzed these responses for schools that had added some teams 

without discontinuing others. To get some specific examples of how 

schools augmented their athletic program without eliminating teams or 

severely reducing their funding, we visited four selected colleges and 

universities that were NCAA member schools. We chose these schools in 

order to achieve variation in a number of characteristics, including 

geographic diversity, whether the school was public or private, size of the 

athletic department budget, whether the school awarded athletic 

scholarships, whether sports were profitable, and whether the school 

sponsored football. At each school, we interviewed the athletic director 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 34 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

and other staff involved in administering the athletic program and toured 

the athletic facilities. 
Page 35 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Appendix II

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

GAO Contacts David D. Bellis, (415) 904-2272

Benjamin P. Pfeiffer, (206) 287-4832

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the individuals named above, Joel I. Grossman, Elsie M. 

Picyk, Meeta Sharma, Sharon M. Silas, Stanley G. Stenersen, Jason M. 

Suzaka, and James P. Wright made key contributions to this report.
Page 36 GAO-01-297 Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams

Related GAO Products

Gender Equity: Men's and Women's Participation in Higher Education

(GAO-01-128, Dec. 15, 2000).

Interscholastic Athletics: School District Provide Some Assistance to 

Uninsured Student Athletes (GAO/HEHS-00-148, Sep. 12, 2000).

Intercollegiate Athletics: Comparison of Selected Characteristics of Men's 

and Women's Programs (GAO/HEHS-99-3R, June 18, 1999).

Intercollegiate Athletics: Status of Efforts to Promote Gender Equity

(GAO/HEHS-97-10, Oct. 25, 1996).

Intercollegiate Athletics: Compensation Varies for Selected Personnel in 

Athletic Departments (GAO/HRD-92-121, Aug. 19, 1992).

(104992) Letr

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00