Collegiate athletic teams are being eliminated at an alarming rate; however, empirical research of athletic spending and participation after these cuts occur is lacking. This study compared whether the proffered rationales for discontinuing teams were consistent with the measurable budgetary and participation outcomes. From a sample of NCAA Division I institutions that discontinued at least one team between the academic years 2000-01 and 2008-09 (N = 125), a total of 49 schools with documented cut rationales were identified. The EADA cutting tool was then used to examine athletic revenues, expenses, and participation numbers from the year prior and the year after the cuts to determine, via descriptive statistics and paired t-tests, if the stated objectives were met. The three reasons primarily cited for the program elimination included: reducing athletic spending (44.9%), reallocating resources (42.9%), and Title IX compliance (18.4%). Statistical analysis revealed that only institutions citing reallocation of athletic resources were able to achieve their stated goals. Institutions citing efforts to reduce athletic spending had significant increases in athletic expenses and none of the institutions citing Title IX compliance achieved substantial proportionality. These results show a troubling disconnection between the sport elimination rationale and the budgetary and participation outcomes.he decision to discontinue a collegiate athletic team is one of the most difficult decisions that an athletic administrator must make. Such a decision has life altering implications for many student-athletes and coaches. Thus, it is of the utmost importance that these decisions be made with the best information available. Currently, when the decision to discontinue an athletic program is made T