mbBear said:
calumnus said:
juarezbear said:
calumnus said:
Goobear said:
Pittstop said:
Goobear said:
Hmmm….I bet that could be any color student from affluent families who wants to row….In the grand scheme of that sounds like a rounding error….
"Could be"? As in "theoretically"? What percentage of these theoretical, $5M+ estate, black and brown families do you reckon are exposed to competitive "rowing" as a family athletic pursuit? Or via family patronage? I'd reckon that it would rival the percentage that competes in the Americas Cup (which I had the opportunity to attend when it was held in SF a few years back).
Speaking about %, what % of the total enrollment does a rower represent? It is a rounding error. In the meantime they must have the grades to get in etc etc…by the way what % of first generation college students are pushed into majors that don't equate to enough postgraduation pay enough to pay their student loans?….
There are 1,072 student athletes at Cal.
So there are more than 900 student athletes in the non-revenue sports. That is a lot.
M Baseball
M Cross Country
M Golf
M Gymnastics
M Rowing
M Rugby
M Soccer
M swimming and Diving
M Tennis
M Track and Field
M water Polo
W Beach Bolleyball
W Cross Country
Field Hockey
W Golf
W Gymnastics
W Lacrosse
W Rowing
W Soccer
W Softball
W Swimming and Diving
W Tennis
W Track and Field
W Volleyball
W Water Polo
California taxpayers subsidizing a Berkeley education, facilities, coaching and setting aside hundreds admissions slots for children from wealthy families on the East Coast? While their own kids cant get in? I don't see how we can justify that going forward. At least not to the scale we have been. If it is ruled athletes are employees the whole thing collapses.
As someone who played a non-revenue "wealthy" sport (Men's Golf) at Cal, I'm pushing back on all of this hate going on. I was out of state and paid out of state tuition my first year before gaining residency which was much easier in the late 70's. Most of my fellow athletes were excellent students who have since gone on to great careers, mainly in California. Many of us also contribute quite generously to Cal BECAUSE we don't take it for granted. I can't tell you how many of my fellow students asked me why I came to Cal when I could've gone to UT Austin for less money. They didn't value what Cal and UC in general offers. I can assure you that I personally have paid many millions in CA state income tax in excess of whatever the CA taxpayers paid to subsidize my education, and I'm sure there are lot of other ex athletes from non-revenue sports who've done the same. I also believe that well-rounded student/athletes contribute to the student experience for everybody.. The presence of student athletes has certainly stood Stanford, many of the Ivies, and Little Ivies in good stead. t's very easy to pick on some out of state athlete for crew or water polo or golf who might come from serious means, but would that apply equally to someone from Atherton, Malibu, or Newport Beach? I know that people on this site want Knowlton gone, but digging around for some dirt for something to hang him with could easily backfire and burn down the village you're trying to save. It just blows me away to read this ****ty attitude that reinforces the reputation that Cal can't have nice things because the supporters act like the proverbial lobsters in the pot who drag down those who are trying to escape so everybody dies. Really pretty disgusting.
No one is hating on you. You have to understand that was almost 50 years ago. The late 70s were a different time. Prop 13 had not yet gutted the state's finances (only city and county). Compared to today, the cost of attending Cal was relatively low for most students. Even out of state students could establish residency easily after the first year. College admissions was not as cut throat at as it is today. It was not so difficult to get into Cal (staying in Cal was the challenge). The football team generated a lot of money and coaching salaries were low. The stadium was long ago paid for. Amateurism was strictly enforced. We competed in a regional conference with low travel costs. There was no Title IX. Moreover, we had affirmative action to insure racial diversity in the general student body so there was no racial diversity impact from having "country club" sports. The geographic diversity was welcome. I am very glad you came to Cal and yes, thank you for your contributions. In many ways we are very lucky we went to Cal at that time and if I could wave a magic wand I would return Cal to those times. At least my daughters could have attended the school they grew up dreaming of attending.
However, we can't. We need to deal with the present. The question is what can Cal support going forward? Given the circumstances as they currently exist. For financial reasons Cal is going to be forced to make changes, better to be proactive than reactive.
My proposal is that the model for non-revenue sports would look much like what you faced: no scholarship, paying out of state tuition. There could be admission preference but not admission slots or at least fewer and with greater oversight. Most non-revenue sports would not compete in the ACC but would compete in a local conference instead. However, this is just a discussion board. No need to defend the past, what is your idea for the future, knowing we face difficult decisions?
Show me which sports have strong commitments from alums and donors, and let's start there. One woman's sport with a coach endowment, so maybe don't cut that? Any one else going to step up to save a sport? If you cut the sports using Edwards, are there residual benefits for freeing up property?
Which Title IX option is in play for Cal specifically?
Yes, with the caveat that any male sport is paired with an equivalent female sport for funding, scholarships, level of competition, etc.
Title IX has 3 "Prongs": 1. Proportionality, ie if women are 55% of your student body at Cal, 55% of your athletes are women, which is the most difficult for Cal to achieve. 2. Expanding opportunities, you keep adding women's sports opportunities, what Cal has been doing, but cannot keep doing. We cannot cut sports and satisfy this prong. 3. Show that the school is effectively accommodating the athletics interests and abilities of the females enrolled in the institution. That there is enough interest to field a team and a team is dropped only if there is not enough interest among enrolled female students in fielding one.
My proposal would be effectively the third prong, If men's and women's crew, for example, do not offer scholarships or admission slots, and only consist of enrolled students that go out for the team, and take, at least on the women's side, every women who signs up, then crew meets Title IX requirements under Prong 3, and if coaches and expenses are covered by donors, it is a keeper.
Similarly mens and women's rugby would be one program and would meet Prong 3 as long as it offers equal scholarships and admissions slots (or none at all) and every woman who signs up is on the team. If not enough women sign up to field a team in any sport, you have still met the Prong 3 standard. It was offered.
The ACC requires only football, men's and women's basketball and one other women's sport. I'd go with women's soccer as the ACC is a great conference for that sport. Women's volleyball has great conferences to join on the west Coast. As I've suggested before, I'd seperate these from the rest of the AD and have there management be outsourced to sn alumni run not for profit that would pay the coaches and players.
That would allow the non-revenue sports to be largely "participation" sports, with the level of competition determined by ability and donor support. Again, scholarships and admissions slots could be offered if there is enough donor support and it is offered equally between the men's and women's teams.
