Originally Posted by Hintite
Obviously, Rugby was the "sacrificial lamb", better them than Men's Track don't you think?
Well, to be quite honest with you I was rather shocked that Cal Track and Field ( and Cross Country ) and their $1.5 million dollar annual budget was not axed given their overall lack of performance in the Pac-10 conference.
This past year, the Men's XC team came in 3rd at Pac-10's and 3rd at Regionals, and qualified for NCAA's; but if you look back over the years that kind of "top-tier" conference performance has been the rare exception. Men's and Women's Outdoor Track and Field has been even worse.
But, given that these two sports are offered to women AND the fact that Indoor and Outdoor T&F has been able to contribute points ( in a small way ) towards the overall Director's Cup Trophy standings that the AD gets measured by . . . while Rugby does not, I can see why Cal T&F and XC were not cut.
I have also heard that there were a number of criteria ( 15 issues ) that the athletic department and the 8-member "Chancellor's Panel" used to evaluate each Sports team before making their final decision to cut. It appears that the track and field and cross country coaches had "addressed" the majority of those criteria over the months leading up to this decision.
As it is, I'm still somewhat puzzled how the 5 teams that were cut add up to the financial "savings" that the Administration has claimed. For example, if Baseball was $975,000 and Mens gymnastics was $350,000 . . . I just don't see how you get to the $4 million dollars of first year savings that was claimed by the Administration.