In an era where mid-major athletic departments are retreating—cutting sports to preempt budget strain or anticipated revenue shifts—one school is doing the unthinkable. Instead of scaling back, the University of the Pacific is scaling up.
Earlier this month, Pacific announced it would add men’s cross country and men’s track and field, revive its men’s and women’s diving programs, and expand its women’s field events roster. All of this is set to take place by the 2025-26 academic year.
The decision stands in stark contrast to the headlines dominating the rest of mid-major college athletics. Just in the past few weeks:
Stephen F. Austin dropped four sports, including nationally competitive bowling.
Eastern Illinois and Radford eliminated both men’s and women’s tennis.
Grand Canyon cut men’s volleyball, despite a historic NCAA Final Four run.
Cal Poly and UTEP also joined the parade of reductions.
Each of these schools pointed to the “changing landscape” of college athletics, a coded phrase for the financial pressures tied to the looming House v. NCAA settlement, which will open the door to athlete revenue sharing and ratchet up operating costs across the board.
So what’s Pacific’s strategy here? Why zig when everyone else zags?
A Calculated, Strategic Bet
Athletic Director Adam Tschuor told Extra Points that his team dove into contingency planning the moment they read the House settlement proposal. From day one, Pacific knew they wanted to stay competitive in Division I men’s and women’s basketball—which meant they had to opt into the settlement. But opting in, he quickly realized, wouldn’t be cheap.
Fully funding every sport at new maximum roster limits wasn’t financially viable, and it would’ve thrown off the school’s Title IX compliance—too many male athletes, not enough female counterparts. So instead of trimming sports to save money, Pacific went the opposite route.
They added teams.
“We must have looked at a thousand different scenarios,” Tschuor said. The idea wasn’t to spend recklessly, but to find smart, targeted expansion that would help preserve institutional priorities—revenue, enrollment, compliance, and mission alignment.
Track, cross country, and diving made sense. They didn’t require enormous facilities investments, had strong regional competition, and—crucially—could be filled quickly with transfer athletes already in the portal. For a school looking to move fast and minimize startup costs, those criteria were essential.
Sports as a Student Recruitment Strategy
It’s easy to look at non-revenue sports like track or diving and ask, “What’s the ROI?” But Tschuor is betting on a more holistic answer.
In the post-House settlement era, sports will increasingly serve as enrollment and retention engines. Athletes may not generate ticket sales, but they pay tuition, fill dorms, and become engaged members of campus life. If the goal is to run a financially stable and mission-driven athletic department, the calculus can’t only be about TV money and sponsorships.
“College sports is a business, sure,” Tschuor said, “but it’s also supposed to be co-curricular.”
Pacific’s Approach: A Blueprint for Others?
Tschuor doesn’t pretend that every school can do what Pacific is doing. The right answer will look different for every campus, depending on geography, donor support, and institutional priorities. But he does hope that Pacific’s decision opens up space for other schools to consider addition, not just subtraction.
“In this moment,” he said, “if we can encourage just one other school to add instead of cut, that’ll be a win.”
And he’s not done. Long term, Pacific is exploring other growth opportunities—possibly restoring field hockey or men’s volleyball, and even evaluating club sports like women’s flag football. (Football, he jokes, only makes sense if someone cuts an $80 million check.)
A Test Case in the Making
Pacific’s move is bold. It flies in the face of conventional wisdom in mid-major athletics, where financial risk often drives decision-making. But it’s also a reminder that institutional mission matters. Growth, not austerity, can still be a viable path—even for a mid-major in Stockton, California.
As Tschuor sees it, college athletics doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. And if the House settlement forces schools to rethink the business model, maybe that’s not a bad thing.
It’s early days yet. But if Pacific proves that smart, strategic investment can yield returns in student engagement, enrollment, and campus vitality, then their blueprint may not be such an outlier after all. It might just become the roadmap.
