Thanks to Gymblog for responding to our recent post about Title IX reform .  Gymblog worries, "But the unfortunate thing is that in most places, Utah, Oklahoma and the Southeast excepted, gymnastics brings little revenue to the universities that have it.  Equipment and coaching is expensive.  Meet attendance is tiny." Gymblog is correct about the revenue aspect and attendance.  However, attendance is robust for many of the bigger meets.  Meets held early in the season, such as the Stanford Open, often are standing-room-only, albeit in rather small venues.  The NCAA championships generate very good attendance.  Perhaps it’s a marketing problem for many of the regular season meets.  The Stanford Open is a great three-day meet, also featuring club competition (levels 5 through 10), that dominates the weekend.  The reason why Stanford is able to generate large crowds on Saturday night is because there are many families and friends in town to see their young club gymnasts compete on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.  Combining the clubs with the collegiate competition is a great way to increase attendance.

Gymblog also goes on to say that "men’s gymnastics is more like football — in both sports the NCAA is a breeding ground for the big time — the Olympics in the case of the former, and the pros for the latter." Very true.  Because men’s bodies mature later than women’s, men’s Division I programs are more important for Olympic development.  NCAA programs for women are actually post-Olympics or on the separate "college track," rather than the elite track that goes international when the best female gymnasts are still in their teens.  For this reason alone, it just might be important to consider Title IX waivers to be granted to schools that choose to have men’s gymnastics programs.  Funding might not be a problem if donors knew that schools could be free to establish or re-establish men’s programs without Title IX constraints.  Corporate sponsorships should also be part of the equation.  Funding shouldn’t be an issue for a prime-time Olympic sport.  We need more opportunities for men, and the more men we have competing at the Division I level, the better it is for the sport and for the athletes.  We’re not talking about football and basketball here.  Gymnasts have higher graduation rates than football and basketball players.  It’s a win-win situation.

Gymblog also asks, "So why is the fan base so small?" Again, we think it’s a marketing problem.  The NCAA should strive to include club competition at their meets.  Why not hold more of the meets on the weekends so the clubs can also compete?  Attendance would swell with the influx of parents, friends and relatives of club athletes.  The number of Division I programs is dwindling and the sport of men’s gymnastics is in dire need of a new paradigm.

If you like this post, then please consider subscribing to our full feed RSS . You can also subscribe by e-mail and have new posts sent directly to your inbox.

Related posts:

Title IX Reform: Saving Men’s Gymnastics

Attention NCAA: Quit Screwing with Men’s Gymnastics