Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 106

Thread: OT: Christ to be the next Chancellor

  1. #46
    True Blue Golden Bear moonpod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    9,348
    you need 16 sports don't you?

    oh wait you stuck XC and track as separate

    ok. isn't the ratio still off? doesn't cal have more women than men in the gen population?
    3-9 and a 95% graduation rate trump a Rose Bowl

  2. #47
    Why don't we just buy Alta Bates when it closes. We can either put down the money for the Earthquake retrofitting or just tear it down and start fresh.

  3. #48
    She promised 3 years.

  4. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by 77Bear View Post
    She was born in 1944 which makes her 72 (or 73) years old. That could make her perceived as a short-timer which could limit her ability to manage and effect change.
    Politicians are older than that and still effective. Judges too.

  5. #50
    True Blue Golden Bear moonpod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    9,348
    Quote Originally Posted by packawana View Post
    Why don't we just buy Alta Bates when it closes. We can either put down the money for the Earthquake retrofitting or just tear it down and start fresh.
    you don't get it. it's not just the hospital. it's the training programs. you can't conjure up residency programs out of your @$$.
    3-9 and a 95% graduation rate trump a Rose Bowl

  6. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by moonpod View Post
    ok. isn't the ratio still off? doesn't cal have more women than men in the gen population?
    I'm using fiats 46% bare minimum which he based off a 51% total female ug population.

  7. #52
    True Blue Golden Bear moonpod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    9,348
    ok. just curious, why is the womens swim allotment smaller than mens?
    3-9 and a 95% graduation rate trump a Rose Bowl

  8. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by OldBlue1999 View Post
    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.
    I will be very sad if baseball is cut. I love going to the games and try to hit up 4-6 games per year. Heck, I'm going tonight. My kids are almost 3 and 6 months. My older boy loves baseball and I have been looking forward to taking him to more and more games. And while I am a Giants fan, Cal games are much more affordable and a great way to spend a sunny weekend afternoon. On sunny days, the place is pretty full, with lots of kids running around and having fun. Frankly, I'm unclear why baseball is proposed to be cut and not men's soccer.

    But I get why it's in the discussion. Your proposed solution seems fair to me. Baseball should be given a few years to be secure a permanent endowment. If it can't, fine. But an immediate cut, or a 1-year or less deadline, seems unfair.

  9. #54
    I gave preference in my selection of men's sports based on roster size (lack thereof), shared use of existing common facilities with one or more complementary offsetting women's sport(s), and uniformity of participation by other P12 schools. In that order. Roster size is self-explanatory: it directly impacts the required number of women's slots. I assume that there is some cost efficiency in terms of upgrades, maintenance, staffing, etc. with shared facilities. Take the new Haas scoreboards and sound system for example. One cost factor, obviously justified by MBB revenue, that at least 3 other sports get use out of. P12 participation is a lot murkier, but I assume that there may possibly be some inherent positive cost-Title IX benefit relationship in the more common sports. I weighted this one a lot less though due to uncertainty, it was basically just a tie breaker that never actually got used.

  10. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by FiatSlug View Post
    So much anger here. Cal doesn't maintain FBS membership without at least 7 women's sports. But it gets more complicated from there.

    If you choose to cut any sports, Cal must demonstrate proportional opportunities to both sexes within 5% of the undergraduate student body (which is 51% women). If you choose to offer proportional opportunities to women, then at least 46% of the total roster spots must be for women alone.
    The other part of the equation is how do scholarships have to line up between sexes, not just the roster spots.

    Without a scholarship equivalency requirement, one might be able to cut men's track and get roster spots in line with prong 1 of title ix (425/(393+425)= .48). From there the cuts could come very close to trimming 1:1 the slots from each mens' and womens' sports. However, I'd guess track has many athletes that are double counted, so it's way more complex.


    Would each cut sport net $500k - $1 million savings? Maybe? There is a doc (can't find it, but it was on calbears.com before the site redesign) from the last attempted cut that details the cost of each sport... however, it does NOT allocate overhead from the athletic department which is probably in the $10-15 million range (could be even more depending on how facility maintenance is paid for). An additional question would be how much savings could be attained from reducing athletic department overhead (ie layoffs of admins and support) to go along with the sports cuts.

    But this math doesn't work if scholarships must also meet prong 1 (equivalency) of title ix.

    That dropping rugby to club status is being discussed again indicates to me that women's sports are indeed on the chopping block. There would be no reason to move rugby down if it were not to cut women's sports. Then the issue of roster spots vs scholarships in meeting title ix equivalency will determine how many men's sports will have to be cut.

    My personal thoughts are that if women's sports are to be cut, lacrosse and field hockey should be on the board due to the interest levels just not being there among youth. They are niche sports. Particularly so on the west coast, and you see that in where the schools are on the schedule. But doing so would mean rugby, baseball, soccer, track, gymnastics and maybe even mens crew would be cut...

    Mens' Tennis, golf, water sports, football, and basketball are from what I hear untouchable, but the end question is how much would be saved from cutting everything else?
    Last edited by ColoradoBear1; 03-14-2017 at 10:18 AM.

  11. #56
    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.
    Do you have a source for this? I don't believe this is correct (for reasons wiaf pointed out, and others).

  12. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by grandmastapoop View Post
    I will be very sad if baseball is cut. I love going to the games and try to hit up 4-6 games per year. Heck, I'm going tonight. My kids are almost 3 and 6 months. My older boy loves baseball and I have been looking forward to taking him to more and more games. And while I am a Giants fan, Cal games are much more affordable and a great way to spend a sunny weekend afternoon. On sunny days, the place is pretty full, with lots of kids running around and having fun. Frankly, I'm unclear why baseball is proposed to be cut and not men's soccer.

    But I get why it's in the discussion. Your proposed solution seems fair to me. Baseball should be given a few years to be secure a permanent endowment. If it can't, fine. But an immediate cut, or a 1-year or less deadline, seems unfair.
    I love baseball more than most. I have very fond memories of watching games on campus while an undergrad. But if it goes, so be it. It likely frees up money, helps with Title 9 and opens up physical space on campus that can be used for other / better purposes (hoops practice facilities and/or field hockey ... yes, I know that costs money)

  13. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by tequila4kapp View Post
    I love baseball more than most. I have very fond memories of watching games on campus while an undergrad. But if it goes, so be it. It likely frees up money, helps with Title 9 and opens up physical space on campus that can be used for other / better purposes (hoops practice facilities and/or field hockey ... yes, I know that costs money)
    And we can repurpose the huge baseball field to expand the campus. That's some prime real estate there!

  14. #59
    I would guess it would house softball...as well as some other things.

  15. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    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?
    I don't know anything about the overall UC balance sheet or UCSF's latest statement of activities, but everyone here is convinced that a new medical center will solve Cal's woes when in fact UCSF already balances out Cal at the UC level since they are only health sciences.




Posting Permissions

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