Story Poster
Photo by Berkely Lab

One on One With Chancellor Christ

March 29, 2018
86,153

Bear Insider had the opportunity to speak further with Chancellor Carol Christ this week, covering a range of topics in greater detail, including the AD applicant pool and estimated hire date (estimated to be by the end of April at the latest), the likelihood of athletic program cuts (not a foregone conclusion), thoughts on changing Cal's philanthropic outreach and more.

Title IX's goal and legal requirements of gender equity in collegiate athletics has schools like Cal, with extraordinarly high numbers of athletic programs, over a barrel. It becomes virtually impossible to cut any women's sports along with men's because doing so brings the university further out of compliance with Title IX. Consequently, the university and Chancellor Christ are committed to rectifying the university's ongoing problems with both compliance and budget deficits by likely moving from Prong 3 compliance to Prong 1, which appears to be the more sustainable model for the university's unique situation.

Much of the talk recently has centered around predictions of significant program cuts in Cal's athletic department but reports of the demise of several potential target programs are premature, to say the least.

"Let me make clear, moving to Prong 1 does not necessitate sports cuts," said Christ. "There's enough latitude to reach the criteria for conformity to Prong 1 just by roster management.

"That doesn't mean that there might not be good reasons to move some sports to club status, but Prong 1 doesn't necessitate that."

When the university cut baseball and moved rugby to club status in 2011 under then athletic director Sandy Barbour, there was a firestorm of backlash within the donor community with strong ties to both programs. Any savings from the cuts were surpassed by lost donations from key large donors that withheld philanthropic contributions as a result.

Both sports ended up being restored after major fundraising within each program.

"From what I've heard, Cal's philanthropic culture is unusually segmented by sport," said Christ. "Of course, people want to give to the sport that they love and the sport that they played, but I don't think it's always the healthiest way to shape a philanthropic program for athletics. People have to understand it's the Cal Athletics program, not the Cal Crew program or the Cal Rugby or Baseball program, as important as those sports are. So I really hope in time, we can move towards a more integrated and holistic sense of fundraising for athletics.

One of the potential solutions floated by Cal rugby head coach Jack Clark was to fully-fund and staff a women's rugby team while also significantly reducing men's rugby's roster spots. Cal rugby also finances several women's sports on campus as well as fully-funding their own program.

"I would depend on the partnership with the new athletic director to think that through," said Christ of the idea. "I know women's rugby is one of the sports in the wings that if we were to stay in Prong 3, they might meet the standards to add it, so there's interest."

The university has long been challenged by the lack of a coherant and unified message in philanthropic outreach and the issue is clearly in the center of the chancellor's radar, both short term and long term.

"Most of our donors to athletics have other interests on campus so they're the set of donors you'd think you'd most like to address in a comprehensive way," said Christ. "We just recently have had a study completed by the firm Marts & Lundy about our readiness for a campaign we hope to launch, probably within the calendar year 2019. And one of the observations the report makes is we've become more decentralized in our fundraising than is optimal for the institution. So one of my goals as chancellor is to have, not just in athletics but generally for the whole campus, a more integrated and holistic approach to philanthropy. Most of our donors have multiple interests within the institution so it's important to work with those donors with a vision of where the campus is going -in the whole and as an integrated way."

The recent reports have touched significantly on altering the university's philanthropical outreach approach and the Cal community can expect to see fairly significant changes in that area in years to come.

"They have lots of ideas and are going to be doing a special study this summer on athletics fundraising," said Christ. "They're a consulting firm, so they're not going to tell us what our vision is but they have lots of strong ideas on our process and how we can more effectively organize our resources to be more integrated and more donor-centric in our approach to philanthropy."

All of the stated issues have been squarely at the center of the discussion with new Athetic Director candidates and all clearly know that getting budgets and rosters in line are major priorities for the university.

"It's absolutely something that's clearly a part of the picture for the new candidate," said Christ. "I'm looking for a partner in all of these things.

"The first thing I'm going ask a new athletic director to do is to develop a strategic plan for athletics," beyond ideas discussed in the interview process, of course.

Despite the challenges Cal's next Athletic Director will be facing, the pool of qualied applicants appears to be far better numerically than it's been in the past in prior AD searches.

"The pool of qualified applicants has been deep and rich," said Christ. "I've been really impressed with how much interest there is in this position. I think people see it as an interesting set of challenges that are, of course, not unique to Cal. They're challenges that exist generally in the world of college athletics."

As for the issue of the potential for making significant strides in tapping into a vast reservoir of potenial new donors that don't presently contribute to the university in any substantial way, the chancellor is optimistic based on what she's seen and heard so far.

"Both the CSA report and the Marts & Lundy report I referred to say the philanthropic potential is huge in our community and a lot of it is untapped. That's very exciting news to hear," concluded Christ.

Discussion from...

One on One With Chancellor Christ

81,879 Views | 54 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by Another Bear
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We could cut men's gymnastics, and we'd save how much exactly? Pennies.
los altos bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
T9 has provided women with more athletic opportunities to develop mind and body and experience a camaraderie and esprit de corps. My daughter is playing d3 tennis and it is a remarkably enriching experience for her. However, the well documented unintended consequence of dwindling opportunities for boys (including my daughter's younger brothers!) in non-revenue sports is unfortunate to say the least.

T9 should be modified to lessen this unfortunate unintended consequence. Some thoughts:

If football (and basketball) are funding some/most/all of a university athletic program, there must be some commensurate relief from T9. There is nothing sexist or misogynistic about such a proposal. It's certainly not reducing women to some fraction of a man. It's simply taking into account the economic realities of university sports programs.

A related alternative would be to pay football and basketball players (players in revenue sports) only because this would preclude those then employee/players from being considered under T9... of course, this might be a Pyrrhic victory as it would put pressure on both men's and women's non-revenue sports to become self funded or be eliminated as football/basketball would no longer be able to support them...

Another alternative - why not base athletic opportunities (scholarships and roster spots) on the relative sport participation rates in high school - or better yet, participation rates in high level 18u competitions (e.g. The number of 18u boys and girls who competed in x number of high level usta tennis tournaments over y number of months relative to participation rates in other sports)?.... I'm sure an algorithm could be developed that would be a lot more fair than the T9 mandate that collegiate sport opportunities be based on the % of men and women who attend a specific school (and because more women attend college than men at most institutions today, more men's programs are being eliminated at universities - especially those with a football team...)... I wonder when T9 will be applied to engineering schools (where there are more men than women) and veterinary schools (where 80% of the students are women), etc?

I've also included below the opportunities for men and women in a few non-revenue sports, as well as basketball and football. With regard to pre college high level participation rates, I can only speak somewhat anecdotally to tennis.
My observation is that the draws (and number of applicants) are bigger for the boys than for girls at high level usta junior tournaments in NorCal. This, coupled with fewer programs/scholarships for men, means that a man in say the top 5% will have fewer opportunities than a women in that percentile.

Tennis
D1 256 men's programs (4.5 scholarships) 327 women's programs (8 scholarships)
D2 164m (4) 224w (6)
D3 330m 371w

Swimming/diving
D1 133m (9.9) 195w (14)
D2 73m (8.1) 103w (8.1)
D3 230m 259w

Water polo
D1 25m (4.5) 34w (8)
D2 8m (4.5) 12w (8)
D3 15m 17w

Basketball
D1 351m (13) 349w (15)
D2 311m (10) 312w (10)
D3 425m 442w

Football
FBS 129 (85)
FCS 125 (63)
D2 170 (36)
D3 248
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66 said:

So we need to look at men's sports to drop. The first thing that comes to mind is that there is tons of interest in swimming & diving by attendance at Spieker for meets. There is plenty of alum rowers and ruggers in financial support of their respective programs. The others need to assess with a long term viable plan how they are to survive and what the effective cost is. Then those in power need to assess return on investment in these programs. In other words, is baseball support short term or long term such that we need not worry. To me men's T&F should be toast, and I know a lot of reasons for keeping it but do not see it cost effective in any way. Keep women's T&F if needed for Title IX (so I am not so much against T&F but don't see a way to keep mens under the current problems). Men's tennis and golf----alums step up or gone. Men's soccer, roster reductions.

In other words, every men's sport goes under the microscope. We don't keep them for passion or diversity reasons. We look at all for financials. Why? Because that is where we are. The problem was developed when we decided on a big umbrella of sports. The costs have come to haunt us, and then Title IX has forced the issue.
You make a good case. The argument regarding T&F that gives me pause is the relationship to football. Would it be worth dropping T&F if it meant that the next Jahvid Best or Demetrius Robertson doesn't come to Cal because he couldn't run track? We usually have 1-2 football players a year who run sprints and I'd hate to have that be a recruiting disadvantage.

Although I agree that financials are the most important factor, diversity is nonetheless important--if for no other reason than optics ("Cal cuts sports for African American and Hispanic athletes to preserve those for suburban white kids").
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How many guys are pulling double duty football/T&F now

Malik
Drob
Davis
________ can't remember his name a RS freshman DB ??
Sebastabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Football uber alles. Excel here and everything else becomes a footnote. S&C basically tuned themselves from an academic joke into a top 20 school on the back of football (and the alumni connections and donations it generated). Hell as far as I can tell Alabama funds their entire university from football. We aren't going to do either of those (and we don't need to do the first one) but we sure could fund our athletic department (and maybe more) if we started getting some consistent success on the gridiron.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66 said:

Another Bear said:


Quote:

-- Men's gymnastics, men's rowing, men's rugby, men's swimming & diving.

None of those are going. Arguably those three are the most successful athletic programs at Cal...and you don't axe where you excel.

I never knew we were that good at men's gymnastics, and that in itself says something. Most every other sport at Cal I generally knew where they stand. The other three, you are spot on.

Actually I meant the last three, but Cal has been very good in men's gymnastics but not the powerhouse stuff of rugby, crew and swimming (and water polo). Streaky or generational. It's really a shame rugby and crew aren't NCAA, because that would raise the chance of a Sears Cup (or whatever it's called now).
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

OdontoBear66 said:

So we need to look at men's sports to drop. The first thing that comes to mind is that there is tons of interest in swimming & diving by attendance at Spieker for meets. There is plenty of alum rowers and ruggers in financial support of their respective programs. The others need to assess with a long term viable plan how they are to survive and what the effective cost is. Then those in power need to assess return on investment in these programs. In other words, is baseball support short term or long term such that we need not worry. To me men's T&F should be toast, and I know a lot of reasons for keeping it but do not see it cost effective in any way. Keep women's T&F if needed for Title IX (so I am not so much against T&F but don't see a way to keep mens under the current problems). Men's tennis and golf----alums step up or gone. Men's soccer, roster reductions.

In other words, every men's sport goes under the microscope. We don't keep them for passion or diversity reasons. We look at all for financials. Why? Because that is where we are. The problem was developed when we decided on a big umbrella of sports. The costs have come to haunt us, and then Title IX has forced the issue.
You make a good case. The argument regarding T&F that gives me pause is the relationship to football. Would it be worth dropping T&F if it meant that the next Jahvid Best or Demetrius Robertson doesn't come to Cal because he couldn't run track? We usually have 1-2 football players a year who run sprints and I'd hate to have that be a recruiting disadvantage.

Although I agree that financials are the most important factor, diversity is nonetheless important--if for no other reason than optics ("Cal cuts sports for African American and Hispanic athletes to preserve those for suburban white kids").


But Ursa, we can't have everything. I don't know if track is the right sport to cut, but maintaining a whole program because it might get you a football recruit once in a while is not cost effective. If you were the football coach, what would you rather have, a track program to sell for recruiting, or the money from that track program to invest in football coaches and facilities that would assuredly result in a far greater recruiting advantage?
OneKeg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

How many guys are pulling double duty football/T&F now

Malik
Drob
Davis
________ can't remember his name a RS freshman DB ??
Branden Smith
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thx 1keg I could not recall his name for shhh
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

OdontoBear66 said:

So we need to look at men's sports to drop. The first thing that comes to mind is that there is tons of interest in swimming & diving by attendance at Spieker for meets. There is plenty of alum rowers and ruggers in financial support of their respective programs. The others need to assess with a long term viable plan how they are to survive and what the effective cost is. Then those in power need to assess return on investment in these programs. In other words, is baseball support short term or long term such that we need not worry. To me men's T&F should be toast, and I know a lot of reasons for keeping it but do not see it cost effective in any way. Keep women's T&F if needed for Title IX (so I am not so much against T&F but don't see a way to keep mens under the current problems). Men's tennis and golf----alums step up or gone. Men's soccer, roster reductions.

In other words, every men's sport goes under the microscope. We don't keep them for passion or diversity reasons. We look at all for financials. Why? Because that is where we are. The problem was developed when we decided on a big umbrella of sports. The costs have come to haunt us, and then Title IX has forced the issue.
You make a good case. The argument regarding T&F that gives me pause is the relationship to football. Would it be worth dropping T&F if it meant that the next Jahvid Best or Demetrius Robertson doesn't come to Cal because he couldn't run track? We usually have 1-2 football players a year who run sprints and I'd hate to have that be a recruiting disadvantage.

Although I agree that financials are the most important factor, diversity is nonetheless important--if for no other reason than optics ("Cal cuts sports for African American and Hispanic athletes to preserve those for suburban white kids").


But Ursa, we can't have everything. I don't know if track is the right sport to cut, but maintaining a whole program because it might get you a football recruit once in a while is not cost effective. If you were the football coach, what would you rather have, a track program to sell for recruiting, or the money from that track program to invest in football coaches and facilities that would assuredly result in a far greater recruiting advantage?
You're right, of course. I'm only pointing out that there are a number of factors that need to be considered. Also, it is doubtful that if TF were cut the extra money would go back into football (although one could argue it should).
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

OdontoBear66 said:

So we need to look at men's sports to drop. The first thing that comes to mind is that there is tons of interest in swimming & diving by attendance at Spieker for meets. There is plenty of alum rowers and ruggers in financial support of their respective programs. The others need to assess with a long term viable plan how they are to survive and what the effective cost is. Then those in power need to assess return on investment in these programs. In other words, is baseball support short term or long term such that we need not worry. To me men's T&F should be toast, and I know a lot of reasons for keeping it but do not see it cost effective in any way. Keep women's T&F if needed for Title IX (so I am not so much against T&F but don't see a way to keep mens under the current problems). Men's tennis and golf----alums step up or gone. Men's soccer, roster reductions.

In other words, every men's sport goes under the microscope. We don't keep them for passion or diversity reasons. We look at all for financials. Why? Because that is where we are. The problem was developed when we decided on a big umbrella of sports. The costs have come to haunt us, and then Title IX has forced the issue.
You make a good case. The argument regarding T&F that gives me pause is the relationship to football. Would it be worth dropping T&F if it meant that the next Jahvid Best or Demetrius Robertson doesn't come to Cal because he couldn't run track? We usually have 1-2 football players a year who run sprints and I'd hate to have that be a recruiting disadvantage.

Although I agree that financials are the most important factor, diversity is nonetheless important--if for no other reason than optics ("Cal cuts sports for African American and Hispanic athletes to preserve those for suburban white kids").
I appreciate the image of the country club sports say versus T&F, but take a look at their rosters. You can't get more country club than men's golf and the starting 5 is three asian kids, a black kid, and the proverbial two white suburban kids. The head coach and the assistant coach are minorities. All sports are a lot more diverse than campus, and the stereotype of which sports belong to the evil white devils doesn't always hold. Take a closer look at all the white kids on the T&F roster. As for the donor step-up, golf is close to self-funding. Cut that you save pennies. Men's tennis and women's tennis actually work together and are doing well at funding. Your cut men's tennis, you hurt women's tennis, and AA would be the first to tell you.

The problem is programs with high salary coaches and that lose tons of money (e.g,, women's basketball). One thing that often in mentioned is that some programs blow their budget big time with out accountability. Maybe the new AD will see things differently once T9 no longer is in the way. The optics of complying with prong one of T9 are good, but compliance has further benefits.
BearinOC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

There are no women's sports even remotely comparable in scholarship needs and numbers to football, nor are there any women's sports that turn a penny of profit.

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
i think you may be short sighted there. Softball is huge right now and is being televised like no other women's games. I think Christ is right in upgrading the softball facility and expanding and improving the ranking in the nation. With this, I believe women's softball can not only fund itself but support other women's program.
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearinOC said:

MoragaBear said:

There are no women's sports even remotely comparable in scholarship needs and numbers to football, nor are there any women's sports that turn a penny of profit.

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
i think you may be short sighted there. Softball is huge right now and is being televised like no other women's games. I think Christ is right in upgrading the softball facility and expanding and improving the ranking in the nation. With this, I believe women's softball can not only fund itself but support other women's program.
I was going to write a huge response why I disagree ..but just from personal experience the problem is that women don't support their sports in the numbers needed to turn a profit. I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to rectify that either, just that throwing money at a situation isn't the answer all the time.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

BearinOC said:

MoragaBear said:

There are no women's sports even remotely comparable in scholarship needs and numbers to football, nor are there any women's sports that turn a penny of profit.

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
i think you may be short sighted there. Softball is huge right now and is being televised like no other women's games. I think Christ is right in upgrading the softball facility and expanding and improving the ranking in the nation. With this, I believe women's softball can not only fund itself but support other women's program.
I was going to write a huge response why I disagree ..but just from personal experience the problem is that women don't support their sports in the numbers needed to turn a profit. I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to rectify that either, just that throwing money at a situation isn't the answer all the time.
This is actually a part of a larger problem. Turns out when husbands and wives attend different colleges, the bulk of their philanthropy is almost always to the man's alma mater.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

OaktownBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

OdontoBear66 said:

So we need to look at men's sports to drop. The first thing that comes to mind is that there is tons of interest in swimming & diving by attendance at Spieker for meets. There is plenty of alum rowers and ruggers in financial support of their respective programs. The others need to assess with a long term viable plan how they are to survive and what the effective cost is. Then those in power need to assess return on investment in these programs. In other words, is baseball support short term or long term such that we need not worry. To me men's T&F should be toast, and I know a lot of reasons for keeping it but do not see it cost effective in any way. Keep women's T&F if needed for Title IX (so I am not so much against T&F but don't see a way to keep mens under the current problems). Men's tennis and golf----alums step up or gone. Men's soccer, roster reductions.

In other words, every men's sport goes under the microscope. We don't keep them for passion or diversity reasons. We look at all for financials. Why? Because that is where we are. The problem was developed when we decided on a big umbrella of sports. The costs have come to haunt us, and then Title IX has forced the issue.
You make a good case. The argument regarding T&F that gives me pause is the relationship to football. Would it be worth dropping T&F if it meant that the next Jahvid Best or Demetrius Robertson doesn't come to Cal because he couldn't run track? We usually have 1-2 football players a year who run sprints and I'd hate to have that be a recruiting disadvantage.

Although I agree that financials are the most important factor, diversity is nonetheless important--if for no other reason than optics ("Cal cuts sports for African American and Hispanic athletes to preserve those for suburban white kids").


But Ursa, we can't have everything. I don't know if track is the right sport to cut, but maintaining a whole program because it might get you a football recruit once in a while is not cost effective. If you were the football coach, what would you rather have, a track program to sell for recruiting, or the money from that track program to invest in football coaches and facilities that would assuredly result in a far greater recruiting advantage?
You're right, of course. I'm only pointing out that there are a number of factors that need to be considered. Also, it is doubtful that if TF were cut the extra money would go back into football (although one could argue it should).
The whole point of cutting a varsity sport, if any are ultimately cut, would be to eliminate a budget deficit, right? So if a sport is dropped, there wouldn't be any extra money to send to football or any other sport.
BearinOC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think Christ has already stated that the stadium should be renovated partly to be in compliant in title 9. I watch softball on my Pac 12 network. Watch a game, it is so much faster and more fun than baseball.
BearinOC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

MinotStateBeav said:

BearinOC said:

MoragaBear said:

There are no women's sports even remotely comparable in scholarship needs and numbers to football, nor are there any women's sports that turn a penny of profit.

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
i think you may be short sighted there. Softball is huge right now and is being televised like no other women's games. I think Christ is right in upgrading the softball facility and expanding and improving the ranking in the nation. With this, I believe women's softball can not only fund itself but support other women's program.
I was going to write a huge response why I disagree ..but just from personal experience the problem is that women don't support their sports in the numbers needed to turn a profit. I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to rectify that either, just that throwing money at a situation isn't the answer all the time.
This is actually a part of a larger problem. Turns out when husbands and wives attend different colleges, the bulk of their philanthropy is almost always to the man's alma mater.
Christ has said she need to upgrade the facility to be in title 9 compliance. You should watch softball if you don't is is so much more fast paced than baseball is. It is on all SEC, Pac12, other conference networks. They even have the world series on like the march madness. All that TV money helps.
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearinOC said:

UrsaMajor said:

MinotStateBeav said:

BearinOC said:

MoragaBear said:

There are no women's sports even remotely comparable in scholarship needs and numbers to football, nor are there any women's sports that turn a penny of profit.

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
i think you may be short sighted there. Softball is huge right now and is being televised like no other women's games. I think Christ is right in upgrading the softball facility and expanding and improving the ranking in the nation. With this, I believe women's softball can not only fund itself but support other women's program.
I was going to write a huge response why I disagree ..but just from personal experience the problem is that women don't support their sports in the numbers needed to turn a profit. I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to rectify that either, just that throwing money at a situation isn't the answer all the time.
This is actually a part of a larger problem. Turns out when husbands and wives attend different colleges, the bulk of their philanthropy is almost always to the man's alma mater.
Christ has said she need to upgrade the facility to be in title 9 compliance. You should watch softball if you don't is is so much more fast paced than baseball is. It is on all SEC, Pac12, other conference networks. They even have the world series on like the march madness. All that TV money helps.
I was raised on womens softball...my sister was a Division 1 pitcher back in the mid to late 90s. So I got drug around to all the tournaments in Stockton and Lodi (hell on earth)
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearinOC said:

I think Christ has already stated that the stadium should be renovated partly to be in compliant in title 9. I watch softball on my Pac 12 network. Watch a game, it is so much faster and more fun than baseball.
No thanks. And the chanting from the bench is incredibly annoying.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All you he-men Cal guys, try this...then comment.

Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.