Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 106

Thread: OT: Christ to be the next Chancellor

  1. #31
    To quote the Mad King, "Burn them all!" Just kidding, I'm obviously a Cal football fan.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by pingpong2 View Post
    As far as I know, tuition for students are the same for all undergrad programs, so she wouldn't be able to raise tuition just for Haas undergrads. It'd have to be an increase in the MBA tuitions (which are currently subsidizing the undergrad Haas program).
    You would have to make Haas independent like Anderson to raise tuition.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by calbear93 View Post
    As long as there is one in SF (especially one of that caliber), I would say none.
    With naming rights, I would say about 24 hours.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by LTbear View Post
    Yes, but what are the odds of us ever starting a med school? Especially with the funds needed on the front end.
    I think you would have the financial commitment completed in a month with naming rights.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by CaliforniaEternal View Post
    As long as UC is one system, any surplus generated by a place like UCSF will end up covering Cal's deficit. If Cal broke off to become an independent entity it would actually have to get serious about deficit reduction.
    What surplus? Since 2015 UCSF is operating under a "defect resolution plan". Without tuition increases it would have lost money this last fiscal year. What you really meant is UCSF has been taking taking debt service away from other UC schools, right?

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by FiatSlug View Post
    I get the anger from your blanket statement that sports are prioritized from cheapest to most expensive. That's an invitation to a solution that serves no one. But it is the solution that is the most dismissive. And it sets up a cut-throat atmosphere to achieve survival.

    I think you do have a point, though: endow or die. That's Cal's destination and it's been building towards that spot on the landscape for decades now. So, take the following for what it's worth (which may not be very much, if anything).

    To begin with, Baseball is not guaranteed a spot among the survivors. They have to earn it. And if Baseball can be cut, there are a number of other men's sports that probably should be cut as well.

    Gymnastics - 21 spots
    Soccer - 29 spots
    All Track combined - 105 spots
    reduce football by 48 spots (from 154 to 106)
    demote rugby to club status (64 spots go off the books since rugby is no longer a sponsored sport)

    That eliminates 267 spots, leaving 329 spots for Men's sports and allows cuts on the Women's side of the ledger (about 116 spots).

    Beach Volleyball - 18 spots (also last sport added)
    Gymnastics - 18 spots
    Lacrosse - 33 spots

    That would leave 47 female spots that could be cut later.

    Oh, hey. Cut Baseball and reduce the Men's participation by 35 spots (now at 294 spots). Now you can also cut Women's Track & Field (86 spots; Women's participation is now at 290 spots). Voila! You now have substantial compliance on Prong 1, proportional representation.

    Let's see. You also can free up Evans Diamond and Edwards Field by putting Women's soccer at Dwight-Derby field on the Clark Kerr campus, thereby reducing facility costs.

    The number of sponsored sports drops from 30 to about 19 or 20 and the administration component of the Athletic Department can be significantly reduced as well. It might also mean that the Academic Support component as it is now is better able to serve the down-sized student-athlete contingent.

    The crappy part of this exercise is that it means that there will be a lot of student-athletes with dashed hopes and dreams. A lot of coaches looking for jobs. A lot of staff in facility maintenance looking for work. A lot of administrators hitting the bricks. There is a huge human component to this that cannot be ignored.

    But barring a sudden influx of capital, I don't see how this ship gets righted and put on course without cuts, and lots of them. There are no winners here, because there were no hard decisions made back in the 80s and 90s when the costs were far less. Looking back at history, I think that Cal thought they could literally spend their way out of their quandary.

    Ugh.
    No doubt this exercise has been done by the latest committee several times and in different ways. However, it is not cut and dry. Your not reducing football spots. If anything more money is being put into football, since its the means to pay down debt and other sport deficits, at least in the short run, and they need improvement in the team to do that. This was a policy not only supported by Christ by also the UC President herself.

    Then there is a repeat of what happened the last time sports were cut, which was the entire cost savings were more than offset by donors pulling money and on top of that, they also pulled money from academic giving. It was lose-lose. OTOH, at the risk of being redundant, the current model of football paying the deficit for so many sports is not sustainable. This is not an easy decision. My guess is some male teams are going away and some other cost center at the UC level is absorbing some share of the stadium debt for reasons I don't want to discuss. Purely speculation on my part, but the optics work.
    Last edited by wifeisafurd; 03-13-2017 at 11:25 PM.

  7. #37
    No one finds the thread title funny?

  8. #38
    True Blue Golden Bear okaydo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bearilinga, CA
    Posts
    21,699
    Quote Originally Posted by MiZery View Post
    No one finds the thread title funny?
    It's pronounced "Chris" as in Chris Rock....and it would've been funnier if she got the job in 1997 (when she was runner-up to Berdahl).

    Funnier because in 1997, UC Berkeley's chief spokesman -- and thus, the spokesman for the chancellor -- was a guy by the name of Jesus Mena (Spanish prononunciation of "Jesus").

    So had she been hired in 1997, you would Jesus speaking for Christ.

    Last edited by okaydo; 03-14-2017 at 01:06 AM.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by LTbear View Post
    Yes, but what are the odds of us ever starting a med school? Especially with the funds needed on the front end.
    We don't need one. UCSF has held all our medically allied professions forever, Optometry excepted.

  10. #40
    I love the idea of a Cal Med School. Where would we put it though?

  11. #41
    True Blue Golden Bear okaydo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bearilinga, CA
    Posts
    21,699
    Quote Originally Posted by UCBerkGrad View Post
    I love the idea of a Cal Med School. Where would we put it though?
    Theyre demolishing tolman....and psych and education is moving to Hearst and shattuck

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by okaydo View Post
    Theyre demolishing tolman....and psych and education is moving to Hearst and shattuck
    Doesn't seem a large enough space to house a Med School. Plus, public access is a requirement, no? Where would visitors/patients park?

  13. #43
    True Blue Golden Bear moonpod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    9,346
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    I think you would have the financial commitment completed in a month with naming rights.
    the problem with a med school isn't the money. or the "school" part

    the problem with a med school is the actual you know...medicine part. what are you gonna do? farm the kids out to UC Davis assuming they are interested? for obvious reasons UCSF won't be interested. there are no medical centers in the East Bay that will work. the best chance would have been to have tried to persuade Kaiser to open their med school up at Cal as a joint venture and then get Kaiser to expand Kaiser Oakland. but Kaiser has already decided to do their med school in So Cal. you gonna build a new hospital on campus? and staff it with Cal worthy faculty? brand new residency programs financed how? the medicare slots to pay for residents in the East Bay are already being used. ain't gonna happen.
    3-9 and a 95% graduation rate trump a Rose Bowl

  14. #44
    Wonder if the Richmond waterfront wants a new hospital...

  15. #45
    I'm more than a little apprehensive about delving into specifics but feel maybe I should try to clarify some things:

    First, I understand my solution is cold and detached. There are several sports on both sides that I personally enjoy and support that would not be on my subsidized list. It's simply an economic-driven analysis.

    Second, I'm not claiming to know actual cost or revenue figures. I'm inclined to believe waif in that regard, but it would be nice to know the numbers we're actually dealing with to make more informed assumptions. I'm not going to get into program-specific arguments. I will say my solution would be based on net cost taking into account all dollars in and out. If there are programs that have dollars indirectly tied to them that actually go elsewhere in the university that's simply an accounting problem in my opinion. Identify those dollars and attribute them to the appropriate sport. This does bring in an ancillary problem of potentially preserving more expensive sports at the expense of cheaper ones in reliance on future giving that may or may not actually materialize, so I would make it clear from the outset that this is not a one-time analysis but rather will be subject to periodic review.

    I also understand that there are facility investments that have been made that render elimination of certain sports impractical, if not impossible.

    Finally, I understand completely that my solution will never actually be implemented for a whole host of reasons not related to actually solving the deficit problem.

    So, with that said, using fiats numbers and sketchys research here's my hypothetical subsidized sport list:

    MEN
    Basketball (17)
    Football (110)(reduce to 25 extra slot limit)
    Tennis (11)
    Golf (15)
    Gymnastics (21)
    Soccer (29)
    Swimming (34)
    Total = 237

    WOMEN
    Basketball (17)
    Volleyball (24)
    XC & Track (86)(2 separate sports for NCAA purposes)
    Tennis (11)
    Golf (9)
    Gymnastics (18)
    Soccer (34)
    Swimming (24)
    Total = 223

    48.5%

    One additional caveat is that I would not implement cuts immediately like Barbour did. I get why she likely felt programs needed to feel urgency but I think the distrust and ill-will generated by that is counterproductive. I would set endowment benchmarks for 1, 3, 5 and 10 years for the "discontinued" sports with a 1 year grace period for missing any target.

    So there you have it. Let the love rain down.
    Last edited by OldBlue1999; 03-14-2017 at 08:47 AM.




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •