socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

Golden One said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

Big C said:

---

What if they weren't "ivies", but just schools in the west? Start with the former Pac schools that didn't go to the "B1G": WSU, OSU, the Arizonas. Maybe Colorado and Utah (maybe not). Nevada, UNLV, maybe UC Davis, Boise St, SDSU. Sac St? Air Force? We play Stanfurd every year as our last game. The top teams from this "lesser Pac" conference would go to some sort of piss ant bowl game.

I don't know exactly, but some combination of some of the above schools.

Sure, recruiting would drop off a bit, as would quality of play. But probably not all that much. I really don't see how it would be all that much different than what we've been doing, except no LA schools, no UW or Oregon.

---

Our TV deal would be absolutely terrible with these teams and we'd have to fold many, many sports as a result

---

Only a very few people would really care.

---

What we'd have to do is come up with a new model for the other sports, one that wasn't dependent on subsidies from football revenue. If we value the experience that these student athletes get from competing, we find a way to fund them. Or we eliminate them.

---

Instructive to see how the Big West UC's do it (UCSB, UCSD, UCI, UCR). They don't provide much in the way of scholarships, the travel is essentially local and they don't field football. I leave it to others on a Sunday to go onto their websites and count teams.

---

I have zero problem with every non-revenue sport being made up of mostly Kids from California with a scholarship covering only in-state tuition or less. Most Olympic sports will survive with just preferential admissions. If we put together booster NIL packages for the sports boosters care about, maybe all scholarships are eventually eliminated?

eastcoastcal said:

---

Big C said:

---

stu said:

---

RJABear said:

---

Who would be a west coast ivy ?
- Cal
- Stanford
- Cal Tech
- Pomona/ Harvey Mudd / Pitzer

but then who
- UC Davis ?
- Reed
- Lewis & Clark ?
- Puget Sound ?
- Pepperdine ?

---

I'd start with Cal and Stanford.

Then the other UC campuses (except of course UCLA and UCSF).

Northwestern would fit (except their coast is Lake Michigan).

Rice would fit (except their coast is the Gulf).

I don't think the others you mentioned (or Whitman) are big enough for football.

---

What if they weren't "ivies", but just schools in the west? Start with the former Pac schools that didn't go to the "B1G": WSU, OSU, the Arizonas. Maybe Colorado and Utah (maybe not). Nevada, UNLV, maybe UC Davis, Boise St, SDSU. Sac St? Air Force? We play Stanfurd every year as our last game. The top teams from this "lesser Pac" conference would go to some sort of piss ant bowl game.

I don't know exactly, but some combination of some of the above schools.

Sure, recruiting would drop off a bit, as would quality of play. But probably not all that much. I really don't see how it would be all that much different than what we've been doing, except no LA schools, no UW or Oregon.

---

Our TV deal would be absolutely terrible with these teams and we'd have to fold many, many sports as a result

---

If we lost some or part of the TV deal, perhaps we could then go back to playing football games in the daytime. Imagine that. What a concept!

The LA schools as part of the B1G for football is one thing, but I don't see how It works for basketball with Thursday night games in B1G locations with no direct flights. Worse, basketball season spans the entire academic calendar.

I think the LA schools need to stay in the PAC-12 for the other sports. That gives us leverage.

Another downside for our basketball fans would be that with lowered expectations, Mark Fox might be retained as our coach for some time to come. Of course, with a conference which adds a number of teams from formerly lesser conferences, expectations might again be raised for Coach Fox, as he has demonstrated he could win at Nevada in a lesser conference. Ho hum. I think I'll take a nap.

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Another downside for our basketball fans would be that with lowered expectations, Mark Fox might be retained as our coach for some time to come. Of course, with a conference which adds a number of teams from formerly lesser conferences, expectations might again be raised for Coach Fox, as he has demonstrated he could win at Nevada in a lesser conference. Ho hum. I think I'll take a nap.

---

We are paying him $1.8 million a year. Travis DeCuire makes what, $300k at most at Montana? It is crazy to continue to pay major conferences dollars to a guy who has never won at the major conference level if we will be in a mid-major conference (or lucky to move to a major conference).

---

Cal could terminate him without cause and only be liable for the following:

• Year One: 100% of the base salary and talent fee for the remainder of the contract year in which the termination occurs.
• Year Two: 100% of the base salary and talent fee for the next contract year
• Year Three: 75% of the base salary and talent fee for the next contract year
• Year Four: 50% of the base salary and talent fee for the next contract year
• Year Five: 25% of the base salary and talent fee for the next contract year

Note: His base salary is $250,000

California Coach Mark Fox Signs Five-Year Contract: Salary, Buyout, Incentives - Stadium (watchstadium.com)

socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

What we'd have to do is come up with a new model for the other sports, one that wasn't dependent on subsidies from football revenue. If we value the experience that these student athletes get from competing, we find a way to fund them. Or we eliminate them.

---

Instructive to see how the Big West UC's do it (UCSB, UCSD, UCI, UCR). They don't provide much in the way of scholarships, the travel is essentially local and they don't field football. I leave it to others on a Sunday to go onto their websites and count teams.

---

UCSB has 20 sports
UCSD has 23
UCI has 18
UCR has 15

DiabloWags said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

What we'd have to do is come up with a new model for the other sports, one that wasn't dependent on subsidies from football revenue. If we value the experience that these student athletes get from competing, we find a way to fund them. Or we eliminate them.

---

Instructive to see how the Big West UC's do it (UCSB, UCSD, UCI, UCR). They don't provide much in the way of scholarships, the travel is essentially local and they don't field football. I leave it to others on a Sunday to go onto their websites and count teams.

---

UCSB has 20 sports
UCSD has 23
UCI has 18
UCR has 15

---

How many sports do other biggish West Coast schools where football presumably does not subsidize (just a quick look at various websites):

UC Davis has 23 intercollegiate sports total
San Jose St: 15
Cal Poly SLO: 21
San Diego St: 17
Fresno St: 20

So it's basically anywhere between 15 and 23.

CAL has 28.

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Another downside for our basketball fans would be that with lowered expectations, Mark Fox might be retained as our coach for some time to come. Of course, with a conference which adds a number of teams from formerly lesser conferences, expectations might again be raised for Coach Fox, as he has demonstrated he could win at Nevada in a lesser conference. Ho hum. I think I'll take a nap.

---

We are paying him $1.8 million a year. Travis DeCuire makes what, $300k at most at Montana? It is crazy to continue to pay major conferences dollars to a guy who has never won at the major conference level if we will be in a mid-major conference (or lucky to move to a major conference).

---

Cal could terminate him without cause and only be liable for the following:

• Year One: 100% of the base salary and talent fee for the remainder of the contract year in which the termination occurs.
• Year Two: 100% of the base salary and talent fee for the next contract year
• Year Three: 75% of the base salary and talent fee for the next contract year
• Year Four: 50% of the base salary and talent fee for the next contract year
• Year Five: 25% of the base salary and talent fee for the next contract year

Note: His base salary is $250,000

California Coach Mark Fox Signs Five-Year Contract: Salary, Buyout, Incentives - Stadium (watchstadium.com)

---

You're leaving out his talent fee, which is the majority of his compensation package. So the note, in bold, relating to $250,000 should be thought of as ~$1.7 million.

DiabloWags said:

---

So it's basically anywhere between 15 and 23.

CAL has 28.

---

So this is NOT an existential threat (absent the stadium debt which I continue to believe can be "chickened" onto the regents/system and, in turn, alleviated with a "tax" on UCLA's windfall).

Now will it suck for the student atheletes from about 10 teams that dont have endownments to be eliminated? Surely. It will be even harder since title IX compliance likely means that any men's sport without an endowment is in deep trouble and it might even require elminating an ENDOWED sport if it means title IX compliance is that much more difficult. It is going to suck.

BeachedBear said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Another downside for our basketball fans would be that with lowered expectations, Mark Fox might be retained as our coach for some time to come. Of course, with a conference which adds a number of teams from formerly lesser conferences, expectations might again be raised for Coach Fox, as he has demonstrated he could win at Nevada in a lesser conference. Ho hum. I think I'll take a nap.

---

We are paying him $1.8 million a year. Travis DeCuire makes what, $300k at most at Montana? It is crazy to continue to pay major conferences dollars to a guy who has never won at the major conference level if we will be in a mid-major conference (or lucky to move to a major conference).

---

Cal could terminate him without cause and only be liable for the following:

• Year One: 100% of the base salary and talent fee for the remainder of the contract year in which the termination occurs.
• Year Two: 100% of the base salary and talent fee for the next contract year
• Year Three: 75% of the base salary and talent fee for the next contract year
• Year Four: 50% of the base salary and talent fee for the next contract year
• Year Five: 25% of the base salary and talent fee for the next contract year

Note: His base salary is $250,000

California Coach Mark Fox Signs Five-Year Contract: Salary, Buyout, Incentives - Stadium (watchstadium.com)

---

You're leaving out his talent fee, which is the majority of his compensation package. So the note, in bold, relating to $250,000 should be thought of as ~$1.7 million.

---

My post does not leave out the mention of his talent fee.

HearstMining said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

Big C said:

---

stu said:

---

RJABear said:

---

Who would be a west coast ivy ?
- Cal
- Stanford
- Cal Tech
- Pomona/ Harvey Mudd / Pitzer

but then who
- UC Davis ?
- Reed
- Lewis & Clark ?
- Puget Sound ?
- Pepperdine ?

---

I'd start with Cal and Stanford.

Then the other UC campuses (except of course UCLA and UCSF).

Northwestern would fit (except their coast is Lake Michigan).

Rice would fit (except their coast is the Gulf).

I don't think the others you mentioned (or Whitman) are big enough for football.

---

What if they weren't "ivies", but just schools in the west? Start with the former Pac schools that didn't go to the "B1G": WSU, OSU, the Arizonas. Maybe Colorado and Utah (maybe not). Nevada, UNLV, maybe UC Davis, Boise St, SDSU. Sac St? Air Force? We play Stanfurd every year as our last game. The top teams from this "lesser Pac" conference would go to some sort of piss ant bowl game.

I don't know exactly, but some combination of some of the above schools.

Sure, recruiting would drop off a bit, as would quality of play. But probably not all that much. I really don't see how it would be all that much different than what we've been doing, except no LA schools, no UW or Oregon.

---

Our TV deal would be absolutely terrible with these teams and we'd have to fold many, many sports as a result

---

Yep, the economics would force significant downsizing. But I've never bought into the concept that students should have some God-given right to play their sport at the NCAA level. I fully support Title IX, but unless your program is Stanford, you have to live within your economic means. Somehow, UC Davis and others do it, so Cal could, too. For the sports that don't make the cut, club-level teams may be a great option. My sons both played club-level soccer (not at Cal, but Cal's club team was an opponent) and had great experiences, playing with teammates who were plenty skilled but didn't want to juggle the demands of an NCAA sport with their education.

Maybe this move is just accelerating what we all saw coming. Cal students are focused on achievement, not on vicarious pleasure watching sports. Cal's faculty generally considers sports a distraction to be barely tolerated, not something that adds value to either participants or spectators - they've been that way for 50-60 years that I know of. Maybe top-level NCAA football and basketball have pushed to envelop too far for Cal.

---

There is no reason for these sports to exist at the D1 level anymore. If it added SES/racial diversity to the student body, sure, but the sports that do that are football, basketball, and track. If we were nationally relevant in the sport and it created a proud line of Olympians, I'd also be open. But instead the country club sport rosters are full of affluent kids from Orange County or Marin on their way to 8th place finishes.

socaltownie said:

---

Big C said:

---

Golden One said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

Big C said:

---

What if they weren't "ivies", but just schools in the west? Start with the former Pac schools that didn't go to the "B1G": WSU, OSU, the Arizonas. Maybe Colorado and Utah (maybe not). Nevada, UNLV, maybe UC Davis, Boise St, SDSU. Sac St? Air Force? We play Stanfurd every year as our last game. The top teams from this "lesser Pac" conference would go to some sort of piss ant bowl game.

I don't know exactly, but some combination of some of the above schools.

Sure, recruiting would drop off a bit, as would quality of play. But probably not all that much. I really don't see how it would be all that much different than what we've been doing, except no LA schools, no UW or Oregon.

---

Our TV deal would be absolutely terrible with these teams and we'd have to fold many, many sports as a result

---

Only a very few people would really care.

---

What we'd have to do is come up with a new model for the other sports, one that wasn't dependent on subsidies from football revenue. If we value the experience that these student athletes get from competing, we find a way to fund them. Or we eliminate them.

---

Instructive to see how the Big West UC's do it (UCSB, UCSD, UCI, UCR). They don't provide much in the way of scholarships, the travel is essentially local and they don't field football. I leave it to others on a Sunday to go onto their websites and count teams.

---

And they generally get UC to pay for their facilities.

concernedparent said:

---

There is no reason for these sports to exist at the D1 level anymore. If it added SES/racial diversity to the student body, sure, but the sports that do that are football, basketball, and track. If we were nationally relevant in the sport and it created a proud line of Olympians, I'd also be open. But instead the country club sport rosters are full of affluent kids from Orange County or Marin on their way to 8th place finishes.

---

So you're only concerned about racial diversity?
That's your only reason to fund non-revenue Olympic Sports?

concernedparent said:

---

There is no reason for these sports to exist at the D1 level anymore. If it added SES/racial diversity to the student body, sure, but the sports that do that are football, basketball, and track. If we were nationally relevant in the sport and it created a proud line of Olympians, I'd also be open. But instead the country club sport rosters are full of affluent kids from Orange County or Marin on their way to 8th place finishes.

---

8th place finishes in the Country Club Sports?
That's a ridiculous statement.

concernedparent said:

---

But instead the country club sport rosters are full of affluent kids from Orange County or Marin on their way to 8th place finishes.

---

Your claim isnt even close to being true at CAL.

Cal Men's Golf has no one from Marin or the OC on their roster of 12.
In fact, only one golfer is from the Bay Area. Finigan Tilly is from Carlmont HS in San Carlos.

Cal Women's Golf has 9 on their roster and only 3 are from the Bay Area (San Jose and Fremont).
Again, no one from Marin, OC, or the Lamorinda or Los Altos Hills, Hillsborough, or Atherton area.

Cal Men's Tennis has 9 on their roster and 3 are from Berkeley. One is from Malibu.
The other 5 are from overseas.

Cal Women's Tennis has 10 on their roster.
Half are from overseas. One is from Piedmont. One is from Irvine (OC).

Cal Men's Swimming has 40 on their roster.
27 are from out of state. 1 from Los Gatos. 1 from Pleasanton. 1 from Redondo Beach.

Cal Women's Swimming has 32 on their roster.
23 are from out of state. Only 2 swimmers from the Bay Area (Palo Alto and Walnut Creek).
1 from Newport Beach (OC) and 1 from Yorba Linda (OC).

Athletes from the Bay Area: 10.7%
Athletes from the OC and Marin: 2.6%
Athletes from outside the United States: 29.5%
Athletes from areas of > $135,000 household income in CA: 14.3%

DiabloWags said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

But instead the country club sport rosters are full of affluent kids from Orange County or Marin on their way to 8th place finishes.

---

Your claim isnt even close to being true at CAL.

Cal Men's Golf has no one from Marin or the OC on their roster of 12.
In fact, only one golfer is from the Bay Area. Finigan Tilly is from Carlmont HS in San Carlos.

Cal Women's Golf has 9 on their roster and only 3 are from the Bay Area (San Jose and Fremont).
Again, no one from Marin, OC, or the Lamorinda or Los Altos Hills, Hillsborough, or Atherton area.

Cal Men's Tennis has 9 on their roster and 3 are from Berkeley. One is from Malibu.
The other 5 are from overseas.

Cal Women's Tennis has 10 on their roster.
Half are from overseas. One is from Piedmont. One is from Irvine (OC).

Cal Men's Swimming has 40 on their roster.
27 are from out of state. 1 from Los Gatos. 1 from Pleasanton. 1 from Redondo Beach.

Cal Women's Swimming has 32 on their roster.
23 are from out of state. Only 2 swimmers from the Bay Area (Palo Alto and Walnut Creek).
1 from Newport Beach (OC) and 1 from Yorba Linda (OC).

Athletes from the Bay Area: 10.7%
Athletes from the OC and Marin: 2.6%
Athletes from outside the United States: 29.5%
Athletes from areas of > $135,000 household income in CA: 14.3%


Thanks for the data (and frankly it surprises me to the max). I am particularly intrigued that Swimming is so dominated by out of state kids. I would look, however, at the HH income for the out of state kids and how that stacks up.

I think CTs point is that highly competitive swim, golf and tennis at the youth level (or at least the youth level I Know) just is not something that non upper middle class kids DO. Unlike the revenue sports so much of those feeders are not a function of HS teams but club sports with often yearly tuition that is in the 1000s. So if Cal is bucking that trend it is highly interesting and brings up a very intriguing question of "how"?

---

"Thanks for the data (and frankly it surprises me to the max). I am particularly intrigued that Swimming is so dominated by out of state kids. I would look, however, at the HH income for the out of state kids and how that stacks up."

You're welcome!

I should qualify that when I say "out of state" for Swimming, I'm also including those athletes from out of the country.
I used a broad parameter there.

The Cal Men's roster has 7 swimmers from out of the country. (17.5%)
The Cal Women have 8. (25.0%)

I get your point about the proliferation of Club Soccer and Club Volleyball and even Club Water Polo.
But the fact remains that high school swimming and water polo still see huge participation in high school sports programs throughout California.

One should know that many high school coaches supplement income by having off-season club programs for their high-school athletes. The "tuition" for these programs is highly variable, with some coaches making six figures from the club activities.

DiabloWags said:

---

"Thanks for the data (and frankly it surprises me to the max). I am particularly intrigued that Swimming is so dominated by out of state kids. I would look, however, at the HH income for the out of state kids and how that stacks up."

You're welcome!

I should qualify that when I say "out of state" for Swimming, I'm also including those athletes from out of the country.
I used a broad parameter there.

The Cal Men's roster has 7 swimmers from out of the country. (17.5%)
The Cal Women have 8. (25.0%)

I get your point about the proliferation of Club Soccer and Club Volleyball and even Club Water Polo.
But the fact remains that high school swimming and water polo still see huge participation in high school sports programs throughout California.

---

But.....

And this is just one burg.

I can tell you HS swimming is a FAR afterthoought to competitive club swimming in San Diego (and true of soccer programs as well). My son swims largely for fun and excersise. DId YMCA team for several years. BLOWN AWAY by the club swimmers who are paying 300-400 a month to swim for pacific swim.

socaltownie said:

---

But.....

And this is just one burg.

I can tell you HS swimming is a FAR afterthoought to competitive club swimming in San Diego (and true of soccer programs as well). My son swims largely for fun and excersise. DId YMCA team for several years. BLOWN AWAY by the club swimmers who are paying 300-400 a month to swim for pacific swim.

---

$300 - $400 a month is nothing.
Try $1,000 a month for Club Volleyball in San Jose.

Vision VolleyBall Club

The PAC12 Network has spent a lot of time and money showing non-revenue sports. The audiences for these sports have been so small that none of these sports is credited with any revenue from the Network. That is why it does make sense to limit our non-revenue (i.e,, non-money-generating) sports to those that have specific donor followings, or to convert them to less-expensive club sport status instead.

annarborbear said:

---

The PAC12 Network has spent a lot of time and money showing non-revenue sports. The audiences for these sports have been so small that none of these sports is credited with any revenue from the Network. That is why it does make sense to limit our non-revenue (i.e,, non-money-generating) sports to those that have specific donor followings, or to convert them to less-expensive club sport status instead.

---

I remember looking for Cal WBB games and finding gymnastics instead. I don't know how many people tune in to watch gymnastics but I wouldn't be surprised to find the number is small.

I understand the benefits of Olympic sports to the athletes but I'm not so sure how broadcasting the competition helps. Is that something Larry Scott cooked up?

annarborbear said:

---

The PAC12 Network has spent a lot of time and money showing non-revenue sports. The audiences for these sports have been so small that none of these sports is credited with any revenue from the Network. That is why it does make sense to limit our non-revenue (i.e,, non-money-generating) sports to those that have specific donor followings, or to convert them to less-expensive club sport status instead.

---

Coaches like Jack Clark, Kirk Everist, and Dave Durden will challenge any notion of converting these sports into a "club" sport. Why?

Because they arent able to "tag" recruits through the Cal Admission's Office.
Club sports have no leverage when it comes to recruiting.
Zero.

DiabloWags said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

The PAC12 Network has spent a lot of time and money showing non-revenue sports. The audiences for these sports have been so small that none of these sports is credited with any revenue from the Network. That is why it does make sense to limit our non-revenue (i.e,, non-money-generating) sports to those that have specific donor followings, or to convert them to less-expensive club sport status instead.

---

Coaches like Jack Clark, Kirk Everist, and Dave Durden will challenge any notion of converting these sports into a "club" sport. Why?

Because they arent able to "tag" recruits through the Cal Admission's Office.
Club sports have no leverage when it comes to recruiting.
Zero.

---

The major "cost" cutting would be eliminating scholarships, tags for admissions would still be huge draw in the Olympic sports.

stu said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

The PAC12 Network has spent a lot of time and money showing non-revenue sports. The audiences for these sports have been so small that none of these sports is credited with any revenue from the Network. That is why it does make sense to limit our non-revenue (i.e,, non-money-generating) sports to those that have specific donor followings, or to convert them to less-expensive club sport status instead.

---

I remember looking for Cal WBB games and finding gymnastics instead. I don't know how many people tune in to watch gymnastics but I wouldn't be surprised to find the number is small.

I understand the benefits of Olympic sports to the athletes but I'm not so sure how broadcasting the competition helps. Is that something Larry Scott cooked up?

---

In this day and age it should all be available for streaming. Maybe not necessarily LIVE but it should all be there for people who want to see it.

Sorry if this is accessible to subscribers only but I think it's worth reading:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/07/08/college-football-realignment-big-ten-sec/

Makes me feel better about the Ivy style option.

Good article

Thanks for posting

stu said:

---

Sorry if this is accessible to subscribers only but I think it's worth reading:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/07/08/college-football-realignment-big-ten-sec/

Makes me feel better about the Ivy style option.

---

Article from 10 days ago, but nothing visible has changed since

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/34173740/what-ucla-usc-moves-pac-12-big-ten-mean-college-basketball

DiabloWags said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

There is no reason for these sports to exist at the D1 level anymore. If it added SES/racial diversity to the student body, sure, but the sports that do that are football, basketball, and track. If we were nationally relevant in the sport and it created a proud line of Olympians, I'd also be open. But instead the country club sport rosters are full of affluent kids from Orange County or Marin on their way to 8th place finishes.

---

So you're only concerned about racial diversity?
That's your only reason to fund non-revenue Olympic Sports?

---

SES diversity too. Or did you conveniently leave that out so you could perform outrage? And yes, basically. That and the visibility it brings to the university in the sports where we consistently produce nationally/globally recognized athletes (foremost, swimming). I don't give a rats ass about soccer, field hockey, lacrosse, beach volleyball etc.

concernedparent said:

---

I shouldn't have said country club sports. I really meant non-revenue sports.

So our rosters are full of affluent kids from all over the world on their way to 8th place finishes. How does this help the University again?

---

Ok, so now it's not about country club sports.
You misspoke.

I kind of sensed it was your backhanded way of speaking about racial diversity.

Perhaps you should just come out and say that in the first place, instead of passively-aggressively claiming that I'm the one that conveniently left that out.

But you clearly are not paying attention if you think that these teams are on their way to 8th place finishes.

Perhaps you misspoke again?

Men's Water Polo won an NCAA Championship this past season.

Men's Swim Team won an NCAA Championship this past season.

Men's Varsity 8 Crew Team won an NCAA Championship this past season.

Terminology. There are sports, and there are sports businesses. Football is a sports business. The people who might attend actual games are of relatively little importance to the business.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Terminology. There are sports, and there are sports businesses.

---

And then there are Sports that compete at a National level that promote the BRAND of the University of California not only domestically, but WORLDWIDE and are largely self-funded.

But people who ignorantly claim that these athletes are coming in 8th place are the same people that are oblivious to the fact that they are largely self-funded.