https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2025/stephen-f-austin-title-ix-lawsuit-sports-cuts-1234858818/

Kind of expected something to happen.

I think we've all known that the university for years was looking to add women's sports to help balance the scholarships for Title IX purposes. Cutting women's programs does not seem to make much sense in the long run even if there's always a financial benefit from cutting costs in the near term.

nacluth said:

---

I think we've all known that the university for years was looking to add women's sports to help balance the scholarships for Title IX purposes. Cutting women's programs does not seem to make much sense in the long run even if there's always a financial benefit from cutting costs in the near term.

---

It feels like NIL and all that has changed every one's calculus. I think schools are going to be granted some latitude while adjusting to the new era of college athletics.

Agree Ljacks&Longnecks

After the court ruling on athletes getting NIL money directly from schools, and NCAA increasing squad sizes and scholarships for each team, it's inevitable that 98% of current DI institutions don't have the budgets to sustain this. They have to cut expenses, which means cutting sports. No one likes it but that's what the Power 5 Guys have finally forced on everyone. SFA & for that matter schools in the SLC can no longer compete. Probably will have to cut additional sports because of this lawsuit. Then it's a question how badly do you need to be a DI institution. SFA will not be the only school in the UT System having these discussions, A&M System also. Can't remember but don't you only have to have 4 Mens & 4 Women's sports to play DII? Gets easier to afford for sure. I hate to think it but it could be the new reality.

I'm sure SFA has plans to add some replacement programs for the ones lost, but I do agree that what happened to these athletes who came to SFA with the dream of being a D1 athlete only for it to be taken from them is awful.

As far as compliance is concerned, Men's Tennis, a swim team, and possibly gymnastics would be some affordable teams SFA could add to replace men's golf, bowling, and beach volleyball. SFA already has the an Olympic size pool which is used for the scuba diving class, tennis facilities, and WRJ or Shelton Gym could easily be used for gymnastics.

SFASawmillGuy said:

---

I'm sure SFA has plans to add some replacement programs for the ones lost, but I do agree that what happened to these athletes who came to SFA with the dream of being a D1 athlete only for it to be taken from them is awful.

As far as compliance is concerned, Men's Tennis, a swim team, and possibly gymnastics would be some affordable teams SFA could add to replace men's golf, bowling, and beach volleyball. SFA already has the an Olympic size pool which is used for the scuba diving class, tennis facilities, and WRJ or Shelton Gym could easily be used for gymnastics.

---

Personally I'm of the opinion that the Southland should sponsor every sport out there.

Every institution in our league is trying to grow enrollment. 30 kids on the Lacrosse team is 30 students you may not have had otherwise. There are like 10 Lacrosse scholarships, so you have 20 paying students. That will likely cover the cost of the coaches and travel in a bus league like ours.

So SFA roughly breaks even on those sports when you look at the cost to the athletic department and the gain to the university in terms of paying students.

However, I don't believe SFA will be adding any teams. From my understanding, the House settlement changes the game completely on scholarships and participation.

Whereas before, baseball was allocated 11.4 scholarships, you can now have anywhere between 0 and 35, meaning you can give scholarships to the whole roster if you want. Or to none of the roster. And that's the case for every single sport that used to have a scholarship limit. Softball, swim, track, volleyball, bowling etc.

So I'd expect schools like SFA to just reallocate those scholarships to the other women's teams and that would potentially put them in compliance(no one knows with certainty yet bc this hasn't been litigated in this new landscape yet).

So women's soccer might have 15 scholarships players instead of 10 now, etc. And that could give SFA an advantage over say McNeese, who if they did the same move might put the extra scholarships in softball, etc etc.

But bc of when SFA cut sports, we're going to be on the bleeding edge of the lawsuits that end up deciding what exactly those new regulations look like. Maybe the AD wins. Maybe the Ladyjacks win.

I really really wish we'd went with an "every sport" approach though. We could have added a good chunk of enrollment, and been ahead of UT and A&M when it comes to adding some sports like gymnastics(Texas is the best gymnastics area in the world), men's soccer, and M&W wrestling etc.

TallTexan said:

---

SFASawmillGuy said:

---

I'm sure SFA has plans to add some replacement programs for the ones lost, but I do agree that what happened to these athletes who came to SFA with the dream of being a D1 athlete only for it to be taken from them is awful.

As far as compliance is concerned, Men's Tennis, a swim team, and possibly gymnastics would be some affordable teams SFA could add to replace men's golf, bowling, and beach volleyball. SFA already has the an Olympic size pool which is used for the scuba diving class, tennis facilities, and WRJ or Shelton Gym could easily be used for gymnastics.

---

Personally I'm of the opinion that the Southland should sponsor every sport out there.

Every institution in our league is trying to grow enrollment. 30 kids on the Lacrosse team is 30 students you may not have had otherwise. There are like 10 Lacrosse scholarships, so you have 20 paying students. That will likely cover the cost of the coaches and travel in a bus league like ours.

So SFA roughly breaks even on those sports when you look at the cost to the athletic department and the gain to the university in terms of paying students.

However, I don't believe SFA will be adding any teams. From my understanding, the House settlement changes the game completely on scholarships and participation.

Whereas before, baseball was allocated 11.4 scholarships, you can now have anywhere between 0 and 35, meaning you can give scholarships to the whole roster if you want. Or to none of the roster. And that's the case for every single sport that used to have a scholarship limit. Softball, swim, track, volleyball, bowling etc.

So I'd expect schools like SFA to just reallocate those scholarships to the other women's teams and that would potentially put them in compliance(no one knows with certainty yet bc this hasn't been litigated in this new landscape yet).

So women's soccer might have 15 scholarships players instead of 10 now, etc. And that could give SFA an advantage over say McNeese, who if they did the same move might put the extra scholarships in softball, etc etc.

But bc of when SFA cut sports, we're going to be on the bleeding edge of the lawsuits that end up deciding what exactly those new regulations look like. Maybe the AD wins. Maybe the Ladyjacks win.

I really really wish we'd went with an "every sport" approach though. We could have added a good chunk of enrollment, and been ahead of UT and A&M when it comes to adding some sports like gymnastics(Texas is the best gymnastics area in the world), men's soccer, and M&W wrestling etc.

---

I agree. I think we need to play into more our strengths as a university if we did add new sports. Find ones that actually would keep cost down and also be successful.