JeffEarlWarren;842329873 said:

---

Actually, I would not cut sports. I would cut the travel. Kids love to play games--it doesn't matter where.

***

So I would cut the travel.

We could play all our games right here in the Bay area, with maybe a "reward" in L.A. or Washington.

The kids would love it and we could cut our budget in half.

---

I'm probably going to regret asking, but what do you mean by this? Not travel our athletic teams, as in no away games?

socaliganbear;842329738 said:

---

Wilton's paper from last year on the state of our finances made a decent point about our bloated administration and trimming the fat. Essentially, he has been cutting the fat ever since he got here, and there is still more work to do on that front, but realistically, the amount saved on said fat does not come close to covering the disinvestment from the state. Other sources, like out of state tuition are needed.

Even then, cutting the fat and out of state tuition has so far only allowed us to keep pace with our status quo. Even more is needed to surpass that, which is the ultimate goal. Enter my mantra: Do not waste an opportunity to rope in future donors. Make them love Cal. Make us a winner.

---

Do you have a link to the paper? I'd like to read it.

OldBlue1999;842329890 said:

---

I'm probably going to regret asking, but what do you mean by this? Not travel our athletic teams, as in no away games?

---

Yes, I do mean play local schools. My father attended Cal when they played Santa Clara, USF, St. Mary's Mare island, the Marines,you name it. I'm not speaking for those poor souls who need a national championship in order to survive, but you would see me there every Saturday to root the kids on against any Bay Area team in any sport. It was once that way.

GoBears58;842329889 said:

---

Set the program back more than a decade after clueless Bob told Snyder not to expect an extension on the plane ride back from Florida.

---

Your information is correct. We were privy to the discussions back then. It was a disgrace!

bluehenbear;842329836 said:

---

One correction:
I believe it is the Big10 (B1G) conference that is no longer scheduling FCS opponents in football, not SEC (link: http://www.footballscoop.com/news/8904-big-ten-agrees-to-no-longer-schedule-fcs-opponents). Scheduling FCS opponents is still alive and well in the SEC (link: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/may/28/fcs-foes-to-remain-part-of-sec-scheduling/).

One comment about "Cal" vs "Berkeley"...if you watched the Barbour demotion press conference, that "visual" confusion was more than striking.

---

You are right I was wrong. It was the big Ten, not the S.E.C. Mea Culpa and thanks for setting me straight. I thought it was only my wife who constantly points out how wrong I am. She will be glad to know that she is not alone.

JeffEarlWarren;842329906 said:

---

Yes, I do mean play local schools. My father attended Cal when they played Santa Clara, USF, St. Mary's Mare island, the Marines,you name it. I'm not speaking for those poor souls who need a national championship in order to survive, but you would see me there every Saturday to root the kids on against any Bay Area team in any sport. It was once that way.

---

None of the schools you've listed have a football team. Mare Island doesn't even exist as an institution of undergraduate education anymore I don't think. Moreover, what you propose would require leaving the P12 and all the revenue that comes along with membership, compounding the financial problems not alleviating them. There may have been a time pre-SAHPC/CMS renovation where that approach might have been viable, but not now.

I also think your assertion that "the kids would love it" is dubious at best. I think recruiting would tank in a non-P12, local opponent only model. You want to sign guys like Mixon and Rabb? Forget it. We wouldn't even have signed 90% of the guys we have under that model. Most top recruits choose a college for the same reason most top students do: They think it's the best available alternative to enable professional success.

Maybe you don't care about signing top talent because that's in line with "needing a national championship to survive." Fine. (Although IMHO that implicates another argument viz the mission of Cal to excel in all areas.) You do however say you want to attract and engage a young, rich alumni base. High level talent and competition is inexorably tied to that objective. Success breeds interest; high success breeds high interest; recruits and coaching enable high success. But your model for doing so is to revert back to something that has been gone almost 100 years because you enjoy it more. I hate to tell you, most people wouldn't like that at all, let alone more.

The same really can be said for the idea to eliminate all device assisted noise other than the marching band. The nostalgia many of the oldest Blues feel for that bygone era is simply not shared by most under 35 because they didn't experience it--at least not in the same way or to the same extent. It certainly isn't shared by the casual fan loosely affiliated with Cal and with a limited history of attending Cal games, aka the fans that turn base level attendance into sellouts. When you talk about wanting young rich alumni to buy into Cal athletics, think about the antiquated vision you're selling and what you're competing against four their dollars. The game day experience has evolved; recorded music and in-game ads are here to stay. Some of that is bad, but some can be good. Figuring out a way to do them well and integrate them in a more palatable way while maintaining a role by the band to encourage an engaged, energetic crowd is a far more productive use of time and energy than crusading to eliminate them altogether. The problems with the game day experience have been that they haven't been produced well and we've been losing, not that the band doesn't get to play during every timeout.

freshfunk;842329891 said:

---

Do you have a link to the paper? I'd like to read it.

---

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Some-Thoughts-on-Intercollegiate-Athletics-at-Berkeley-11.16.13.pdf

The same really can be said for the idea to eliminate all device assisted noise other than the marching band. The nostalgia many of the oldest Blues feel for that bygone era is simply not shared by most under 35 because they didn't experience it--at least not in the same way or to the same extent. It certainly isn't shared by the casual fan loosely affiliated with Cal and with a limited history of attending Cal games, aka the fans that turn base level attendance into sellouts. When you talk about wanting young rich alumni to buy into Cal athletics, think about the antiquated vision you're selling and what you're competing against four their dollars. The game day experience has evolved; recorded music and in-game ads are here to stay. Some of that is bad, but some can be good. Figuring out a way to do them well and integrate them in a more palatable way while maintaining a role by the band to encourage an engaged, energetic crowd is a far more productive use of time and energy than crusading to eliminate them altogether. The problems with the game day experience have been that they haven't been produced well and we've been losing, not that the band doesn't get to play during every timeout.

Your thoughts seem to make sense on the surface until one understands the difference between marketing College football vs. NFL. Remember, we compete against the Raiders and Niners, so if we are the same game day experience, with a lesser brand of ball we are doomed to lose. Check out an S.E.C game--Notre Dame--or Big Ten conference game and you'll begin to understand the difference. They don't "cater to the young." They know better.

This is being proven by the University of Michigan. Please read the following article. It says it much better than I can. The title also says it all:

How Michigan's Greed Alienated Fans: A Cautionary Tale For All College Football

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/road-saturday/201406/college-football-fan-stadium-students-business-tv-ncaa-michigan-tickets

JeffEarlWarren;842329977 said:

---

The same really can be said for the idea to eliminate all device assisted noise other than the marching band. The nostalgia many of the oldest Blues feel for that bygone era is simply not shared by most under 35 because they didn't experience it--at least not in the same way or to the same extent. It certainly isn't shared by the casual fan loosely affiliated with Cal and with a limited history of attending Cal games, aka the fans that turn base level attendance into sellouts. When you talk about wanting young rich alumni to buy into Cal athletics, think about the antiquated vision you're selling and what you're competing against four their dollars. The game day experience has evolved; recorded music and in-game ads are here to stay. Some of that is bad, but some can be good. Figuring out a way to do them well and integrate them in a more palatable way while maintaining a role by the band to encourage an engaged, energetic crowd is a far more productive use of time and energy than crusading to eliminate them altogether. The problems with the game day experience have been that they haven't been produced well and we've been losing, not that the band doesn't get to play during every timeout.

Your thoughts seem to make sense on the surface until one understands the difference between marketing College football vs. NFL. Remember, we compete against the Raiders and Niners, so if we are the same game day experience, with a lesser brand of ball we are doomed to lose. Check out an S.E.C game--Notre Dame--or Big Ten conference game and you'll begin to understand the difference. They don't "cater to the young." They know better.

This is being proven by the University of Michigan. Please read the following article. It says it much better than I can. The title also says it all:

How Michigan's Greed Alienated Fans: A Cautionary Tale For All College Football

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/road-saturday/201406/college-football-fan-stadium-students-business-tv-ncaa-michigan-tickets

---

Appealing to nostalgia (even and especially for a time that one never knew) is a very powerful sales tool. The SB regime did not understand this.

JeffEarlWarren;842329977 said:

---

Your thoughts seem to make sense on the surface until one understands the difference between marketing College football vs. NFL. Remember, we compete against the Raiders and Niners, so if we are the same game day experience, with a lesser brand of ball we are doomed to lose. Check out an S.E.C game--Notre Dame--or Big Ten conference game and you'll begin to understand the difference. They don't "cater to the young." They know better.

---

There is also this misnomer that young fans or students care about some recycled top 40 playlist someone at IA put together for games. If they truly are catering to the young, offering a watered down version of something they could get anywhere else is silly.

Reminds me of Mac Court, Galen and Pauley who employ expensive DJs to spin hip hip music during bball games. Nobody cares, at least not enough to trump poor ol' Haas in attendance.


It's like someone's dad trying to impress his teen kids by acting hip.

IMHO there needs to be more Cal Drinking Song at games. But that's just me

It's like someone's dad trying to impress his teen kids by acting hip.

IMHO there needs to be more Cal Drinking Song at games. But that's just me

---

Now we're talking'!

JeffEarlWarren;842329977 said:

---

Your thoughts seem to make sense on the surface until one understands the difference between marketing College football vs. NFL. Remember, we compete against the Raiders and Niners, so if we are the same game day experience, with a lesser brand of ball we are doomed to lose. Check out an S.E.C game--Notre Dame--or Big Ten conference game and you'll begin to understand the difference. They don't "cater to the young." They know better.

This is being proven by the University of Michigan. Please read the following article. It says it much better than I can. The title also says it all:

How Michigan's Greed Alienated Fans: A Cautionary Tale For All College Football

---

First, thanks for the link. It's an interesting read and there's a lot I agree with in it.

Second, I just want to be clear that I'm not attacking you personally or any group, based on age or otherwise. I'm only taking the time to discuss this here because I respect you and your family, am passionate about Cal, and wholeheartedly believe that you are too. I don't think you assumed I was or that you couldn't handle it of it were the case, I just want to be explicit on that point so there's no confusion because my sole aim is to lend another perspective. When I said I would probably regret asking it was for fear of insulting or alienating you, which distinctly is not my intent.

Back to the article, in my opinion it doesn't directly address your position on local opponents or the greater discussion that's been floating around here about banning all device-assisted sound except the band. It admits that Michigan is having the problems it's having even without the type of corporate ads we're subjected to at Memorial. It also focuses primarily on student ticket sales, acknowledging the importance of "catering to the young" as a way to enable the next generation of diehard fans aka ticket sales.

My main contention is that leaving the P12 to play only local opponents is far too drastic, probably impossible, and would also actually be counterproductive. In my opinion that model worked when it did because that was the norm, and it was the norm then only because technology and transportation were limited, not because it was inherently better. I think making that argument distracts from other good points you make, and ultimately diminishes your credibility on those to some degree.

My secondary contention is that the elimination of all device-assisted sound other than the marching band is not necessarily necessary. I think there can be a compromise where recorded music and even ads can coexist with and even enhance tradition if they're done the right way. I admit that might be a prohibitive barrier for the Cal athletic department and agree with socaligan that the problem has been a disconnect between the presenters and the audience. How we design this compromise is far beyond the scope of this post, but in my opinion there needs to be compromise and there needs to be communication and transparency. In my opinion starting the negotiation with a position as severe as eliminating all ads and recorded music has a chilling effect on cooperation and communication.

I think the article hits the nail on the head when it says what people want from college football games is to sit with people they love and enjoy common experiences. I will take it a step farther and say what separates college sports from professional sports for most alumni fans is that the team you're rooting for is a part of you, and you're a part of them. There's a bond between fan and program that cannot be replicated in professional sports. However, with that said, many of the inconveniences of game day attendance are inherent and will only continue to be amplified as technology improves. What will always remain is that certain something that for many people makes being there when that happened irreplaceable.

What scares me the most about that article is that the big mistake Michigan made is instantly reversible. Our big mistakes were ESP and the drive to break apart Bear Backer groups, which are now debt-locked.

socaliganbear;842329738 said:

---

Wilton's paper from last year on the state of our finances made a decent point about our bloated administration and trimming the fat. Essentially, he has been cutting the fat ever since he got here, and there is still more work to do on that front, but realistically, the amount saved on said fat does not come close to covering the disinvestment from the state. Other sources, like out of state tuition are needed.

Even then, cutting the fat and out of state tuition has so far only allowed us to keep pace with our status quo. Even more is needed to surpass that, which is the ultimate goal. Enter my mantra: Do not waste an opportunity to rope in future donors. Make them love Cal. Make us a winner.

---

Several good posts there by SoCal. I don't want to make my post long by explaining everything, but here are my additional thoughts which in some ways echo what SoCal has said.

I think there has to be a new reality at Cal, since State funding is not coming back. You have to use your resources as best you can, including cutting unproductive costs, and supporting sources that bring in revenues. Wilton and Dirks are doing that.

The next AD has to improve the revenue sports programs and have a background in financial management (I think I disagree with Mr. Warren's post in this regard, but I could be misreading what he says). And I think Wilton and Dirks also believe sports provides a mechanism to bring in money to academics - all you have to do is look at what little sister school UCLA does on game day. There is a report coming out by yet another committee, and I expect the interim AD will be charged with making several management reforms. I look forward to see what Mr. Warren says about this when it happens. (I don't always agree with everything he says, but I enjoy reading his commentaries). Expect the new AD to have a managerial background. A Cal background would be a plus (though we don't even select our Chancellors this way typically, unlike say Furd who always seems to elevate from within in order to keep their traditions and business model going), but it probably won't happen.

this is a very informative and enlightening thread.

what are the prevailing thoughts/actions on Cal's identity and branding issues? are there any plans to reform that?

I don't know why I bother with you, but I'll make one more try.

Where did I accuse you of racism, or for that matter sexism? For your information, I totally agree that Sandy Barbour needed to go, and I'm not suggesting that we need a woman, or a minority for that matter. My statement that the list you gave were all old white men is accurate--unless I missed something. FWIW, my objection to these individuals (all of whom I know personally and most of whom I consider friends, btw) is that they are in their 70's (or beyond)--an age when you don't normally learn a new trade and none of them have experience as ATHLETIC MANAGERS. Yes, all are successful in their fields, but I'm successful in mine and I don't pretend that I could run an athletic department. You asked for names; I listed Mike Williams (whom the Chancellor picked as interim, btw). I don't know why you didn't consider him--I assume that you don't know him well enough--no aspersions. I was not a math major, but even I know that the only alternative to someone who is in their late 70's is not someone who is 29 as you suggest. At this point in history there are many female and minority CEO's, etc., but that is not my point. My point is that we need someone with expertise in the running of an athletic department. Would it be nice if it were an Old Blue? Definitely. Would it be nice if it were a personal friend of yours or mine? Sure. But those aren't deal breakers IMO. I want competence over all.

Oh, and the only reason I didn't list names is that I don't want to put someone out there on the inter-webs without their knowledge or permission.

socaliganbear;842329985 said:

---

There is also this misnomer that young fans or students care about some recycled top 40 playlist someone at IA put together for games. If they truly are catering to the young, offering a watered down version of something they could get anywhere else is silly.

Reminds me of Mac Court, Galen and Pauley who employ expensive DJs to spin hip hip music during bball games. Nobody cares, at least not enough to trump poor ol' Haas in attendance.


It's like someone's dad trying to impress his teen kids by acting hip.

IMHO there needs to be more Cal Drinking Song at games. But that's just me

---

Agree with you. I see a herd mentality in the production templates for much of popular entertainment today. There seems to be an assumption that certain technological features must be duplicated hoping to mimic the results in attracting a certain demographic. Even PBS documentaries now feature the high speed cuts, screen flip views, and hyped speech dramatics of the lower content productions on History channel. No information content added, just theatrics. Same with sports. Do we assume the desire to focus on the the field is generationational, so therefore all sorts of tech distractions must be supplied to keep their attention? If I were again a freshman, I would consider that an insult to my intelligence and stay away from any attraction that pandered to that image. After all, I could always play a pick-up game if I want to really enjoy a sport.

Number 031343;842330151 said:

---

Agree with you. I see a herd mentality in the production templates for much of popular entertainment today. There seems to be an assumption that certain technological features must be duplicated hoping to mimic the results in attracting a certain demographic. Even PBS documentaries now feature the high speed cuts, screen flip views, and hyped speech dramatics of the lower content productions on History channel. No information content added, just theatrics. Same with sports. Do we assume the desire to focus on the the field is generationational, so therefore all sorts of tech distractions must be supplied to keep their attention? If I were again a freshman, I would consider that an insult to my intelligence and stay away from any attraction that pandered to that image. After all, I could always play a pick-up game if I want to really enjoy a sport.

---

Excellent points!

Cal Geek;842329440 said:

---

"Cal" or "Berkeley"?

Which do we call our great University, "Cal" or "Berkeley"?

---

What's wrong with "the University of California, Berkeley"?

Bearacious;842329846 said:

---

Sandy wasn't perfect but she moved mountains: there's an element of old boy anti- feminism in the opposition to her and it comes through loud and clear.

---

Good grief! Get off your hyper-liberal soap box and try to accept the premise that some people just don't believe she did a very good job as AD.

Golden One;842330197 said:

---

Good grief! Get off your hyper-liberal soap box and try to accept the premise that some people just don't believe she did a very good job as AD.

---

I fully believe that there are some people that just don't believe she did a very good job. I disagree with them - I think she mostly did a good job. However, YOU need to get off your pseudo-anti-PC soap box and accept that there are others who do not like her in large part because of her gender and the perception about her sexual orientation - and we KNOW this is true because they make it quite clear in the way they talk about her.

grandmastapoop;842330198 said:

---

I fully believe that there are some people that just don't believe she did a very good job. I disagree with them - I think she mostly did a good job. However, YOU need to get off your pseudo-anti-PC soap box and accept that there are others who do not like her in large part because of her gender and the perception about her sexual orientation - and we KNOW this is true because they make it quite clear in the way they talk about her.

---

So some of you youngsters don't recognize pantsuit as a term of endearment?

Memorial was a dump, unsafe and ugly. She was hired to fix it. Some thought that the football problem had been solved, and she was told by many donors to just keep Teddy happy, and work on the rebuild. She did, and she was paid for her work. Business.

Time to move on.

JeffEarlWarren;842329906 said:

---

Yes, I do mean play local schools. My father attended Cal when they played Santa Clara, USF, St. Mary's Mare island, the Marines,you name it. I'm not speaking for those poor souls who need a national championship in order to survive, but you would see me there every Saturday to root the kids on against any Bay Area team in any sport. It was once that way.

---

I agree with OldBlue, what sports are you talking about? You must mean the non-revenue sports, correct? Do they not play the local schools?

You say you wouldn't cut sports, but you would cut travel. Can you give more specific examples of the amounts spent on travel that isn't necessitated by conference games?

When your father attended Cal, all those schools played football. There were no women sports and there were JV teams in most sports. But there also was no PAC12 or TV revenues.

Bobodeluxe;842330240 said:

---

So some of you youngsters don't recognize pantsuit as a term of endearment?

---

This is how Washington owner Dan Snyder defends the use of Redskins.

wifeisafurd;842330058 said:

---

Several good posts there by SoCal. I don't want to make my post long by explaining everything, but here are my additional thoughts which in some ways echo what SoCal has said.

I think there has to be a new reality at Cal, since State funding is not coming back. You have to use your resources as best you can, including cutting unproductive costs, and supporting sources that bring in revenues. Wilton and Dirks are doing that.

The next AD has to improve the revenue sports programs and have a background in financial management (I think I disagree with Mr. Warren's post in this regard, but I could be misreading what he says). And I think Wilton and Dirks also believe sports provides a mechanism to bring in money to academics - all you have to do is look at what little sister school UCLA does on game day. There is a report coming out by yet another committee, and I expect the interim AD will be charged with making several management reforms. I look forward to see what Mr. Warren says about this when it happens. (I don't always agree with everything he says, but I enjoy reading his commentaries). Expect the new AD to have a managerial background. A Cal background would be a plus (though we don't even select our Chancellors this way typically, unlike say Furd who always seems to elevate from within in order to keep their traditions and business model going), but it probably won't happen.

---

WIAF, what is your impression of ASU's recent hire of Ray Anderson as AD? A former Stanford football player, who was a sports agent and then CAO for the Falcons and VP of football operations for the NFL?

buster99;842330243 said:

---

I agree with OldBlue, what sports are you talking about? You must mean the non-revenue sports, correct? Do they not play the local schools?

---

I focused on football because this is the football board and that's where the discussion started, but I don't think it really matters. It's my understanding that P12 membership is contingent upon participation in a certain number of core sports that go beyond football and men's basketball. If that's true, and someone who knows for sure can either confirm or rebut, even removing our non-revenue sports would mean leaving the P12 and giving up all the money that comes along with membership.

Bobodeluxe;842330240 said:

---

So some of you youngsters don't recognize pantsuit as a term of endearment?

Memorial was a dump, unsafe and ugly. She was hired to fix it. Some thought that the football problem had been solved, and she was told by many donors to just keep Teddy happy, and work on the rebuild. She did, and she was paid for her work. Business.

Time to move on.

---

I never had anything to move on from. I think she mostly did a good job, but I am not upset at her resignation/reassignment (voluntary or otherwise). She had a long run and did some good things. I was merely addressing the clearly false assertion that there is not some element of negativity toward her stemming from sexism/homophobia.

grandmastapoop;842330285 said:

---

I never had anything to move on from. I think she mostly did a good job, but I am not upset at her resignation/reassignment (voluntary or otherwise). She had a long run and did some good things. I was merely addressing the clearly false assertion that there is not some element of negativity toward her stemming from sexism/homophobia.

---

100%.

But just remember, :hatters.

OldBlue1999;842330278 said:

---

I focused on football because this is the football board and that's where the discussion started, but I don't think it really matters. It's my understanding that P12 membership is contingent upon participation in a certain number of core sports that go beyond football and men's basketball. If that's true, and someone who knows for sure can either confirm or rebut, even removing our non-revenue sports would mean leaving the P12 and giving up all the money that comes along with membership.

---

I don't know the PAc12 minimum for teams, but 6 of the PAC12 schools field less than 20 NCAA sport teams. Only the Calif and Arizona schools have 20 or more. Cal fields 27 NCAA teams

socaliganbear;842329985 said:

---

There is also this misnomer that young fans or students care about some recycled top 40 playlist someone at IA put together for games. If they truly are catering to the young, offering a watered down version of something they could get anywhere else is silly.

Reminds me of Mac Court, Galen and Pauley who employ expensive DJs to spin hip hip music during bball games. Nobody cares, at least not enough to trump poor ol' Haas in attendance.


It's like someone's dad trying to impress his teen kids by acting hip.

IMHO there needs to be more Cal Drinking Song at games. But that's just me

---

Is awesome. He does songs from every generation, and you see the crowd singing along (well us oldies may not know the words to the hip hop). Even Sinatra. I talked to kid and he is a student, so my guess is he gets a tuition break. And he has a good sense of humor. I imagine for home fans its better than having to watch SC play basketball. Don't know if it works at Cal - a lot may depend on the DJ's personality.

wifeisafurd;842330329 said:

---

Is awesome. He does songs from every generation, and you see the crowd singing along (well us oldies may not know the words to the hip hop). Even Sinatra. I talked to kid and he is a student, so my guess is he gets a tuition break. And he has a good sense of humor. I imagine for home fans its better than having to watch SC play basketball. Don't know if it works at Cal - a lot may depend on the DJ's personality.

---

Yes, I imagine that if the basketball is so bad, the DJ is a positive distraction. Not so at Pauley and Matt. But I'm sure they've convinced themselves that us young folk will come if you make it "cool" with music.

buster99;842330316 said:

---

I don't know the PAc12 minimum for teams, but 6 of the PAC12 schools field less than 20 NCAA sport teams. Only the Calif and Arizona schools have 20 or more. Cal fields 27 NCAA teams

---

CU has 14, so that's at least a baseline. I thought only FB,MBB,WBB and WVB are requirements for conference membership.

The problem is that we can't cut any women's sports basically ever now w/o huge repercussions. And what can we cut on the men's side? Tennis? Track? Soccer? Baseball if they don't complete their endowment push? Even if the aquatics are not fully self supported, cutting them would not work - I'd guess big time supporters would be alienated like rugby was and just pour all their resources into aquatics instead of supporting ESP and football, and the AD would end up with less overall donations in the end.

I said this in another thread, but the best way to proceed with all these sports is to cut expenses of sports that don't have a growing endowment. Encourage more long lasting sport specific donations. Make it clear to all that things may be good while the p12 TV money is coming in, but when that stops, the nuclear option remains and will happen fast if financial support is not set up long term.

ColoradoBear1;842330337 said:

---

I said this in another thread, but the best way to proceed with all these sports is to cut expenses of sports that don't have a growing endowment. Encourage more long lasting sport specific donations. Make it clear to all that things may be good while the p12 TV money is coming in, but when that stops, the nuclear option remains and will happen fast if financial support is not set up long term.

---

The bigger problem for Cal is the repercussion from the Ed O'Bannon case. Non-projected expenses will be going up at a time when Cal could least afford.

Eeyore;842330340 said:

---

The bigger problem for Cal is the repercussion from the Ed O'Bannon case. Non-projected expenses will be going up at a time when Cal could least afford.

---

That's a big problem for the rest of the NCAA, too. Cal may have 470m of facilities unpaid for, but a lot of BCS schools have committed future revenue to smaller projects in the $100-200 million range.

What's done is obviously done, but if I'm a University, I'd seriusly take pause in commuting $$$ to new projects given the O'Bannon case and the Northwestern labor case - think of the liability if FB players are employees - immediately not worth it for most schools, with or without a large TV contract.

Now here's something a little outside the box that could address Title IX issues - if players are entitled to get $$$ from their name and likeness, why not get rid of financial support entirely for non rev sports? As in no scholarships or room and board. Limit payouts strictly to a proportion of revenue brought in by sport?

ColoradoBear1;842330337 said:

---

CU has 14, so that's at least a baseline. I thought only FB,MBB,WBB and WVB are requirements for conference membership.

---

CU has 15, which is the FBS minimum. To wit -
[U]Men's sports[/U] -
Basketball
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Skiing
Track & Field

[U]Women's sports[/U] -
Basketball
Cross Country
Golf
Lacrosse
Skiing
Soccer
Tennis
Track & Field
Volleyball

The Pac-12 mandated sports are as you listed them (Football, Men's Basketball, Women's Basketball, and Women's Volleyball)

ColoradoBear1;842330337 said:

---

The problem is that we can't cut any women's sports basically ever now w/o huge repercussions. And what can we cut on the men's side? Tennis? Track? Soccer? Baseball if they don't complete their endowment push? Even if the aquatics are not fully self supported, cutting them would not work - I'd guess big time supporters would be alienated like rugby was and just pour all their resources into aquatics instead of supporting ESP and football, and the AD would end up with less overall donations in the end.

---

Title IX requires that Cal fulfill one of three prongs: (1) offering a proportion of atheltic scholarships to women that is substantially in line with the proportion of women in the general student population (+/- 5%); (2) an expanding number of athletic scholarship opportunities for women; or (3) an adequate number of athletic scholarship opportunities for women.

Cal, like many FBS schools, has relied on Prong 2 for meeting its Title IX requirements.

To meet Prong 1 would require cutting men's sports so that scholarships for men does not exceed 49% of total athletic scholarships offered at Cal. Men are approx. 44% of the student body at Cal. I believe that as recently as two years ago, Cal's athletic scholarship split was around 60%/40% in favor of men.

Cal could claim compliance under Prong 3, but I believe a lawsuit claiming the opposite would put Cal out of compliance.

The move to cut 5 sports in September 2010 was misguided as it would force Cal to comply with Prong 1. A school can only abandon compliance with Prong 2 or Prong 3 if they can demonstrate compliance with Prong 1.

ColoradoBear1;842330337 said:

---

I said this in another thread, but the best way to proceed with all these sports is to cut expenses of sports that don't have a growing endowment. Encourage more long lasting sport specific donations. Make it clear to all that things may be good while the p12 TV money is coming in, but when that stops, the nuclear option remains and will happen fast if financial support is not set up long term.

---

Agreed.

FiatSlug;842330347 said:

---

CU has 15, which is the FBS minimum. To wit -
[U]Men's sports[/U] -

Skiing

[U]Women's sports[/U] -

Skiing

---

It's unclear to me whether Skiing is really two sports or one. There is no separate skiing title for men and women, so it's really a combined team sport (unlike track or cross country). Maybe it's either, and that's decided based on what's convenient for CU?