I was about to post this to the off topic board, but a former Cal player/grad assistant is involved, so I'll post here.

Here's startling news from UC Riverside: "UCR's budget advisory committee recently listed elimination of athletics, coupled with building a more robust intramural sports program, among four ideas for permanent cuts."

Stan Morrison, former AD of UCR (1999-2011) who played basketball at Cal from 1959-61, told the Press-Enterprise that eliminating athletics would be a "beyond-huge mistake" because in his view: "Athletics is a part of the fabric of all of the great universities in our country."

Following that story from the Riverside Press-Enterprise, UCR AD Tamica Smith Jones issued a response stating in part: "...we clearly want Athletics to be here as we believe we bring tremendous value to our university, and...we are committed to ensuring our future is sustainable for years to come."

My responses to this story:

Yes, COVID-19 has been brutal to the UC and state budgets, but one has to wonder how the financial situation got so bad at UCR that complete elimination of varsity athletics has to be considered, not just downgrading from D1. (Side note: At my alma mater San Jose State, around the same time as the early 2000s state budget crisis, there was a small but vocal movement among faculty to downgrade athletics from what was then Division 1A.)

Also, if athletics is supposed to bring value, UCR surely hasn't shown it as a D1 member. UCR men's basketball routinely made the D2 NCAA Tournament from the '70s to '90s. Since moving up to D1 in 2001, the team has had just two winning seasons and has not finished better than 8-8 in a weak Big West Conference. To make matters worse, UCR's coach left this summer after just two seasons to be associate HC at Arkansas under Eric Musselman. Although UCR women's basketball has been a winning D1 program (three NCAA Tournaments since 2006 and making the WNIT in 2016), the coach resigned shortly before last season due to multiple accusations of abusive behavior.

In the six months since the national sports shutdown, both P5 (recent examples: Iowa and Stanford) and mid-major D1 schools have had to eliminate entire "non revenue" teams. But UCR is the first D1 school I've heard of that's even thinking of a complete elimination of varsity athletics - the last D1 school I can find that 100% dropped intercollegiate athletics was Northeastern Illinois in 1998.

I didn't know that UCR was Div 1. Odd that we've never played them to my knowledge (maybe we have?)

sorry, I know that's not your point

HoopDreams said:

---

I didn't know that UCR was Div 1. Odd that we've never played them to my knowledge (maybe we have?)

sorry, I know that's not your point

---

I know you probably tried to wipe this from your memory, but this was a Wyking special:

HoopDreams said:

---

I didn't know that UCR was Div 1. Odd that we've never played them to my knowledge (maybe we have?)

sorry, I know that's not your point

---

Cal is 1-2 all time against UCR. The one win was in the 2004-05 season opener. The two losses were the 2017 "Wyking special" mentioned in the previous reply and another on December 14, 1979 when UCR was in Division II! (Cal finished the 1979-80 season 8-19.)

philbert said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I didn't know that UCR was Div 1. Odd that we've never played them to my knowledge (maybe we have?)

sorry, I know that's not your point

---

I know you probably tried to wipe this from your memory, but this was a Wyking special:

---

Yeah, I guess so.

Maybe we should delete the entire thread so I can start the forgetting process again. : (

SpartanBear20 said:

---

Cal is 1-2 all time against UCR. The one win was in the 2004-05 season opener. The two losses were the 2017 "Wyking special" mentioned in the previous reply and another on December 14, 1979 when UCR was in Division II! (Cal finished the 1979-80 season 8-19.)

---

I remember watching the 1979 game. UCR played like they had a coach, we played like we didn't. That game (among others) taught me not to disrespect any opponent before seeing them play.

We could have hired Morrison instead of Kuchen.

Makes sense to me. I don't see any reason UCR should field collegiate athletics - especially if it is costing them money.

philbert said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I didn't know that UCR was Div 1. Odd that we've never played them to my knowledge (maybe we have?)

sorry, I know that's not your point

---

I know you probably tried to wipe this from your memory, but this was a Wyking special:

---

A "Wyking special" ? It was not Wyking who shot the basketball at a thoroughly anemic percentage, 0.306, for the game. It was not Wyking who allowed a very weak team to get 49 rebounds. The game is played by 5 players with a ball in their hands. If they don't know how to do this at even a rudimentary level by the time they reach college, there is little a coach can do to get them fully ready for their first game together as a team. I was hard on Wyking. The guy could not coach his way out of a paper bag. He couldn't judge talent, and he couldn't scheme against talent. But the players Cuonzo left for Wyking was one of the worst rosters any Cal coach left for his successor. That group had one proven basketball player, Marcus Lee, and one who proved later to be a decent recruit, Justice Sueing. That was it. That team, in that game, had Nick Hamilton and Deschon Winston in the starting five. Neither of them were Division One players. That team had Don Coleman, a loose cannon who could score 30 points, but wreck and offense and a team doing it. How would you like to coach that guy? It was a team of misfits, a couple of decent players, and others who took up space or were not D1 level, along with a couple who would not develop for a few more years. Some would never develop. Put them together with a coach who could not coach, and it was a disaster. But it was a full team effort, coach and players.

negative negative = positive ?

LateHit said:

---

We could have hired Morrison instead of Kuchen.

---

And could have hired Morrison as AD any number of times we have had vacancies in the last 20 years.

why would you hire Morrison when you had such a proven commodity like Mike Williams??

SFCityBear said:

---

philbert said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I didn't know that UCR was Div 1. Odd that we've never played them to my knowledge (maybe we have?)

sorry, I know that's not your point

---

I know you probably tried to wipe this from your memory, but this was a Wyking special:

---

A "Wyking special" ? It was not Wyking who shot the basketball at a thoroughly anemic percentage, 0.306, for the game. It was not Wyking who allowed a very weak team to get 49 rebounds. The game is played by 5 players with a ball in their hands. If they don't know how to do this at even a rudimentary level by the time they reach college, there is little a coach can do to get them fully ready for their first game together as a team. I was hard on Wyking. The guy could not coach his way out of a paper bag. He couldn't judge talent, and he couldn't scheme against talent. But the players Cuonzo left for Wyking was one of the worst rosters any Cal coach left for his successor. That group had one proven basketball player, Marcus Lee, and one who proved later to be a decent recruit, Justice Sueing. That was it. That team, in that game, had Nick Hamilton and Deschon Winston in the starting five. Neither of them were Division One players. That team had Don Coleman, a loose cannon who could score 30 points, but wreck and offense and a team doing it. How would you like to coach that guy? It was a team of misfits, a couple of decent players, and others who took up space or were not D1 level, along with a couple who would not develop for a few more years. Some would never develop. Put them together with a coach who could not coach, and it was a disaster. But it was a full team effort, coach and players.

---

The buck stops with the HC. He recruits the guys, he runs the practices (well, actually, his assistants ran the practices), and he's in charge of game strategy (well, I don't know if he was or if he left that to his assistants too). Also, the UCR game was in year 2 of his tenure. That should be enough time to instill whatever "culture" he was going to put in to change things. Clearly, he had no clue. That's on Wyking.

helltopay1 said:

---

why would you hire Morrison when you had such a proven commodity like Mike Williams??

---

Morrison was first hired as an AD by UC Santa Barbara In 1986. Morrison retired as AD of UC Riverside in 2011 at age 72 (3 years before Williams was hired) so it was the 25 years before that were the opportunity to bring him home after his success at UC Santa Barbara.

philbert said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

philbert said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I didn't know that UCR was Div 1. Odd that we've never played them to my knowledge (maybe we have?)

sorry, I know that's not your point

---

I know you probably tried to wipe this from your memory, but this was a Wyking special:

---

A "Wyking special" ? It was not Wyking who shot the basketball at a thoroughly anemic percentage, 0.306, for the game. It was not Wyking who allowed a very weak team to get 49 rebounds. The game is played by 5 players with a ball in their hands. If they don't know how to do this at even a rudimentary level by the time they reach college, there is little a coach can do to get them fully ready for their first game together as a team. I was hard on Wyking. The guy could not coach his way out of a paper bag. He couldn't judge talent, and he couldn't scheme against talent. But the players Cuonzo left for Wyking was one of the worst rosters any Cal coach left for his successor. That group had one proven basketball player, Marcus Lee, and one who proved later to be a decent recruit, Justice Sueing. That was it. That team, in that game, had Nick Hamilton and Deschon Winston in the starting five. Neither of them were Division One players. That team had Don Coleman, a loose cannon who could score 30 points, but wreck and offense and a team doing it. How would you like to coach that guy? It was a team of misfits, a couple of decent players, and others who took up space or were not D1 level, along with a couple who would not develop for a few more years. Some would never develop. Put them together with a coach who could not coach, and it was a disaster. But it was a full team effort, coach and players.

---

The buck stops with the HC. He recruits the guys, he runs the practices (well, actually, his assistants ran the practices), and he's in charge of game strategy (well, I don't know if he was or if he left that to his assistants too). Also, the UCR game was in year 2 of his tenure. That should be enough time to instill whatever "culture" he was going to put in to change things. Clearly, he had no clue. That's on Wyking.

---

I agree with your overall opinion - but that L to UCR was actually Wyking's debut as Cal HC. That game happened eight months after another L to an in-state mid-major, the first round game in the NIT where Cal lost to Cal State Bakersfield before Cuonzo returned to the SEC. Now it seems that Cuonzo has finally found his match in Missouri after a continuous pattern of switching jobs every three years.

SpartanBear20 said:

---

I agree with your overall opinion - but that L to UCR was actually Wyking's debut as Cal HC. That game happened eight months after another L to an in-state mid-major, the first round game in the NIT where Cal lost to Cal State Bakersfield before Cuonzo returned to the SEC. Now it seems that Cuonzo has finally found his match in Missouri after a continuous pattern of switching jobs every three years.

---

Oops. I've done my best to wipe the Wyking era from my memory. In any case, he lobbied for the job and said he'd be able to keep the team and recruits intact. Obviously, that didn't happen.

dimitrig said:

---

Makes sense to me. I don't see any reason UCR should field collegiate athletics - especially if it is costing them money.

---

Maybe I'm mincing words here, but for the majority of D1 schools, expenses exceed revenues. Perhaps all those schools should also drop varsity athletics? On the other hand, UCR has the highest percentage (90.71) nationally of athletic funds coming from student fees or school funding.

For a school like UCR, as expensive as athletics may be now, the cost of not having athletics would be higher, for instance as dissatisfied alums/donors stop giving and new graduates do not feel as inspired to give. San Jose State is another example, based on what I've seen first hand - as inept as their football team has been since the 1990s, not having football would have costs (boosters walking away) that exceed savings.

Even before the pandemic, some athletic departments or even entire schools had gone out of business. D3 Spelman College and D2 BYU-Hawaii decided years ago to end varsity athletics. Just one month before the pandemic, D2 Concordia University Portland ceased all operations.

SpartanBear20 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Makes sense to me. I don't see any reason UCR should field collegiate athletics - especially if it is costing them money.

---

Maybe I'm mincing words here, but for the majority of D1 schools, expenses exceed revenues. Perhaps all those schools should also drop varsity athletics?

---

I would be okay with that.

To be clear, I don't think that every department should be judged based on its contributions to the bottom line and that includes athletics.

I believe there is definitely a place for sport in any university whose students wish to participate.

However, there is quite a difference between, say, Caltech where every student who tries out can play versus a D1 collegiate program.

I think that schools like UCLA might have the support and the fanbase to self-fund. Maybe (if the program really is supported 90% by fees as you say) UCR does as well. That's a surprising statistic, if true.

SpartanBear20 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Makes sense to me. I don't see any reason UCR should field collegiate athletics - especially if it is costing them money.

---

Maybe I'm mincing words here, but for the majority of D1 schools, expenses exceed revenues. Perhaps all those schools should also drop varsity athletics? On the other hand, UCR has the highest percentage (90.71) nationally of athletic funds coming from student fees or school funding.

For a school like UCR, as expensive as athletics may be now, the cost of not having athletics would be higher, for instance as dissatisfied alums/donors stop giving and new graduates do not feel as inspired to give. San Jose State is another example, based on what I've seen first hand - as inept as their football team has been since the 1990s, not having football would have costs (boosters walking away) that exceed savings.

Even before the pandemic, some athletic departments or even entire schools had gone out of business. D3 Spelman College and D2 BYU-Hawaii decided years ago to end varsity athletics. Just one month before the pandemic, D2 Concordia University Portland ceased all operations.

---

I think it's entirely likely that we'll see schools, the publics in particular, drop (or downgrade) intercollegiate sports as budgets get tighter. It seems to me that the pressure to remunerate athletes will only intensify and while image and likeness payments won't have to come from school coffers, sharing of gross revenues will further pinch resources. Viewed through the haze of red ink, it becomes ever harder to justify participating in an entertainment business that enriches coaches and prepares a small minority for a professional career. while sucking up scarce resources of money and classroom space that might go to students interested in education rather than an apprenticeship for the NFL/NBA/MLB. I acknowledge that there are donors who are motivated by their interest in athletics but I suspect this tie is probably overrated. Schools like MIT, CalTech and University of Chicago seem to do alright in the world of endowments to say nothing of the Ivy League schools.

SpartanBear20 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Makes sense to me. I don't see any reason UCR should field collegiate athletics - especially if it is costing them money.

---

Maybe I'm mincing words here, but for the majority of D1 schools, expenses exceed revenues. Perhaps all those schools should also drop varsity athletics? On the other hand, UCR has the highest percentage (90.71) nationally of athletic funds coming from student fees or school funding.

For a school like UCR, as expensive as athletics may be now, the cost of not having athletics would be higher, for instance as dissatisfied alums/donors stop giving and new graduates do not feel as inspired to give. San Jose State is another example, based on what I've seen first hand - as inept as their football team has been since the 1990s, not having football would have costs (boosters walking away) that exceed savings.

Even before the pandemic, some athletic departments or even entire schools had gone out of business. D3 Spelman College and D2 BYU-Hawaii decided years ago to end varsity athletics. Just one month before the pandemic, D2 Concordia University Portland ceased all operations.

---

Yep, not just an issue of sports, but survival of the institutions could be in question. I recall reading in The Economist a few months ago about a likely scenario where many second or third tier private colleges will close over the next few years due to lack of students who are able to pay.. Part of this was due to fewer foreign students attending US colleges. In addiition, the population of Millenial college students has just about completed their attendance. The trickel-down effect will hit the smaller colleges the hardest. Maybe that whole tier of good-but-not-great private schools (Whitman, LaVerne, Whittier, etc on the West Coast) could be impacted.

In the late 80's, the last of the baby boomer/genX population bubble moved through college to be followed by a shortage of new students. Didn't Cal, to address this during the early 90s by offering early retirement to some faculty to both "right-size" and allow advancement for junior faculty?

HearstMining said:

---

SpartanBear20 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Makes sense to me. I don't see any reason UCR should field collegiate athletics - especially if it is costing them money.

---

Maybe I'm mincing words here, but for the majority of D1 schools, expenses exceed revenues. Perhaps all those schools should also drop varsity athletics? On the other hand, UCR has the highest percentage (90.71) nationally of athletic funds coming from student fees or school funding.

For a school like UCR, as expensive as athletics may be now, the cost of not having athletics would be higher, for instance as dissatisfied alums/donors stop giving and new graduates do not feel as inspired to give. San Jose State is another example, based on what I've seen first hand - as inept as their football team has been since the 1990s, not having football would have costs (boosters walking away) that exceed savings.

Even before the pandemic, some athletic departments or even entire schools had gone out of business. D3 Spelman College and D2 BYU-Hawaii decided years ago to end varsity athletics. Just one month before the pandemic, D2 Concordia University Portland ceased all operations.

---

Yep, not just an issue of sports, but survival of the institutions could be in question. I recall reading in The Economist a few months ago about a likely scenario where many second or third tier private colleges will close over the next few years due to lack of students who are able to pay.. Part of this was due to fewer foreign students attending US colleges. In addiition, the population of Millenial college students has just about completed their attendance. The trickel-down effect will hit the smaller colleges the hardest. Maybe that whole tier of good-but-not-great private schools (Whitman, LaVerne, Whittier, etc on the West Coast) could be impacted.

In the late 80's, the last of the baby boomer/genX population bubble moved through college to be followed by a shortage of new students. Didn't Cal, to address this during the early 90s by offering early retirement to some faculty to both "right-size" and allow advancement for junior faculty?

---

I forgot to mention it earlier, but there is already an example in the Bay Area. Notre Dame de Namur University, a Division II Catholic school roughly equidistant between San Francisco and Stanford, is closing down next year. Having already ended their athletics program this year, NDNU had been going through declining enrollment and lawsuits in the past 5+ years, so the school was in a fragile situation already. COVID-19 also led to the shutdowns of MacMurray College (D3) and Urbana University (D2) among others.

Also, was this the Economist article you read - College blues: Could a fifth of America's colleges really face the chop?

SpartanBear20 said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

SpartanBear20 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Makes sense to me. I don't see any reason UCR should field collegiate athletics - especially if it is costing them money.

---

Maybe I'm mincing words here, but for the majority of D1 schools, expenses exceed revenues. Perhaps all those schools should also drop varsity athletics? On the other hand, UCR has the highest percentage (90.71) nationally of athletic funds coming from student fees or school funding.

For a school like UCR, as expensive as athletics may be now, the cost of not having athletics would be higher, for instance as dissatisfied alums/donors stop giving and new graduates do not feel as inspired to give. San Jose State is another example, based on what I've seen first hand - as inept as their football team has been since the 1990s, not having football would have costs (boosters walking away) that exceed savings.

Even before the pandemic, some athletic departments or even entire schools had gone out of business. D3 Spelman College and D2 BYU-Hawaii decided years ago to end varsity athletics. Just one month before the pandemic, D2 Concordia University Portland ceased all operations.

---

Yep, not just an issue of sports, but survival of the institutions could be in question. I recall reading in The Economist a few months ago about a likely scenario where many second or third tier private colleges will close over the next few years due to lack of students who are able to pay.. Part of this was due to fewer foreign students attending US colleges. In addiition, the population of Millenial college students has just about completed their attendance. The trickel-down effect will hit the smaller colleges the hardest. Maybe that whole tier of good-but-not-great private schools (Whitman, LaVerne, Whittier, etc on the West Coast) could be impacted.

In the late 80's, the last of the baby boomer/genX population bubble moved through college to be followed by a shortage of new students. Didn't Cal, to address this during the early 90s by offering early retirement to some faculty to both "right-size" and allow advancement for junior faculty?

---

I forgot to mention it earlier, but there is already an example in the Bay Area. Notre Dame de Namur University, a Division II Catholic school roughly equidistant between San Francisco and Stanford, is closing down next year. Having already ended their athletics program this year, NDNU had been going through declining enrollment and lawsuits in the past 5+ years, so the school was in a fragile situation already. COVID-19 also led to the shutdowns of MacMurray College (D3) and Urbana University (D2) among others.

Also, was this the Economist article you read - College blues: Could a fifth of America's colleges really face the chop?

---

That's the article. Thanks, SB20! The Economist is an excellent mag. I don't see how they pack so much info into every issue. Maybe the last publication that really attempts to distinguish between reporting and opinion and hasn't dumbed down their journalism to "Top 5 Reasons for ..." articles.

Back in the 70s, I romanced a girl who went to Notre Dame in Belmont, so I was on campus several times. Man, that real estate must be worth a lot now. The girl moved back home to Oakland and went to Holy Names College - she was a math major and plenty smart (except for the fact she dumped me) and she could easily have handled Cal, but she wanted the small college experience. Holy Names and Mills College are two more that may not survive. It will be unfortunate if we lose a lot of those small colleges and kids no longer have that option.

SpartanBear20 said:

---

I was about to post this to the off topic board, but a former Cal player/grad assistant is involved, so I'll post here.

Here's startling news from UC Riverside: "UCR's budget advisory committee recently listed elimination of athletics, coupled with building a more robust intramural sports program, among four ideas for permanent cuts."

Stan Morrison, former AD of UCR (1999-2011) who played basketball at Cal from 1959-61, told the Press-Enterprise that eliminating athletics would be a "beyond-huge mistake" because in his view: "Athletics is a part of the fabric of all of the great universities in our country."

Following that story from the Riverside Press-Enterprise, UCR AD Tamica Smith Jones issued a response stating in part: "...we clearly want Athletics to be here as we believe we bring tremendous value to our university, and...we are committed to ensuring our future is sustainable for years to come."

My responses to this story:

Yes, COVID-19 has been brutal to the UC and state budgets, but one has to wonder how the financial situation got so bad at UCR that complete elimination of varsity athletics has to be considered, not just downgrading from D1. (Side note: At my alma mater San Jose State, around the same time as the early 2000s state budget crisis, there was a small but vocal movement among faculty to downgrade athletics from what was then Division 1A.)

Also, if athletics is supposed to bring value, UCR surely hasn't shown it as a D1 member. UCR men's basketball routinely made the D2 NCAA Tournament from the '70s to '90s. Since moving up to D1 in 2001, the team has had just two winning seasons and has not finished better than 8-8 in a weak Big West Conference. To make matters worse, UCR's coach left this summer after just two seasons to be associate HC at Arkansas under Eric Musselman. Although UCR women's basketball has been a winning D1 program (three NCAA Tournaments since 2006 and making the WNIT in 2016), the coach resigned shortly before last season due to multiple accusations of abusive behavior.

In the six months since the national sports shutdown, both P5 (recent examples: Iowa and Stanford) and mid-major D1 schools have had to eliminate entire "non revenue" teams. But UCR is the first D1 school I've heard of that's even thinking of a complete elimination of varsity athletics - the last D1 school I can find that 100% dropped intercollegiate athletics was Northeastern Illinois in 1998.

---

I like your question. Such a pass on admin to not even explain why things are so bad. With associated numbers.

HearstMining said:

---

SpartanBear20 said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

SpartanBear20 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Makes sense to me. I don't see any reason UCR should field collegiate athletics - especially if it is costing them money.

---

Maybe I'm mincing words here, but for the majority of D1 schools, expenses exceed revenues. Perhaps all those schools should also drop varsity athletics? On the other hand, UCR has the highest percentage (90.71) nationally of athletic funds coming from student fees or school funding.

For a school like UCR, as expensive as athletics may be now, the cost of not having athletics would be higher, for instance as dissatisfied alums/donors stop giving and new graduates do not feel as inspired to give. San Jose State is another example, based on what I've seen first hand - as inept as their football team has been since the 1990s, not having football would have costs (boosters walking away) that exceed savings.

Even before the pandemic, some athletic departments or even entire schools had gone out of business. D3 Spelman College and D2 BYU-Hawaii decided years ago to end varsity athletics. Just one month before the pandemic, D2 Concordia University Portland ceased all operations.

---

Yep, not just an issue of sports, but survival of the institutions could be in question. I recall reading in The Economist a few months ago about a likely scenario where many second or third tier private colleges will close over the next few years due to lack of students who are able to pay.. Part of this was due to fewer foreign students attending US colleges. In addiition, the population of Millenial college students has just about completed their attendance. The trickel-down effect will hit the smaller colleges the hardest. Maybe that whole tier of good-but-not-great private schools (Whitman, LaVerne, Whittier, etc on the West Coast) could be impacted.

In the late 80's, the last of the baby boomer/genX population bubble moved through college to be followed by a shortage of new students. Didn't Cal, to address this during the early 90s by offering early retirement to some faculty to both "right-size" and allow advancement for junior faculty?

---

I forgot to mention it earlier, but there is already an example in the Bay Area. Notre Dame de Namur University, a Division II Catholic school roughly equidistant between San Francisco and Stanford, is closing down next year. Having already ended their athletics program this year, NDNU had been going through declining enrollment and lawsuits in the past 5+ years, so the school was in a fragile situation already. COVID-19 also led to the shutdowns of MacMurray College (D3) and Urbana University (D2) among others.

Also, was this the Economist article you read - College blues: Could a fifth of America's colleges really face the chop?

---

That's the article. Thanks, SB20! The Economist is an excellent mag. I don't see how they pack so much info into every issue. Maybe the last publication that really attempts to distinguish between reporting and opinion and hasn't dumbed down their journalism to "Top 5 Reasons for ..." articles.

Back in the 70s, I romanced a girl who went to Notre Dame in Belmont, so I was on campus several times. Man, that real estate must be worth a lot now. The girl moved back home to Oakland and went to Holy Names College - she was a math major and plenty smart (except for the fact she dumped me) and she could easily have handled Cal, but she wanted the small college experience. Holy Names and Mills College are two more that may not survive. It will be unfortunate if we lose a lot of those small colleges and kids no longer have that option.

---

It would be interesting to see Mills and ND get rolled into Cal. I could see that happening as a donation from the school to take over debt, etc. and to avoid the demolition of the campuses. Both are fairly close to each other as well. My kids played water polo at both of those schools since they had pools. Both of those schools would also be pretty rich real estate plays. Graduate and staff housing locations, perhaps a new Medical School campus, etc. Nice places.

Oski87 said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

SpartanBear20 said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

SpartanBear20 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Makes sense to me. I don't see any reason UCR should field collegiate athletics - especially if it is costing them money.

---

Maybe I'm mincing words here, but for the majority of D1 schools, expenses exceed revenues. Perhaps all those schools should also drop varsity athletics? On the other hand, UCR has the highest percentage (90.71) nationally of athletic funds coming from student fees or school funding.

For a school like UCR, as expensive as athletics may be now, the cost of not having athletics would be higher, for instance as dissatisfied alums/donors stop giving and new graduates do not feel as inspired to give. San Jose State is another example, based on what I've seen first hand - as inept as their football team has been since the 1990s, not having football would have costs (boosters walking away) that exceed savings.

Even before the pandemic, some athletic departments or even entire schools had gone out of business. D3 Spelman College and D2 BYU-Hawaii decided years ago to end varsity athletics. Just one month before the pandemic, D2 Concordia University Portland ceased all operations.

---

Yep, not just an issue of sports, but survival of the institutions could be in question. I recall reading in The Economist a few months ago about a likely scenario where many second or third tier private colleges will close over the next few years due to lack of students who are able to pay.. Part of this was due to fewer foreign students attending US colleges. In addiition, the population of Millenial college students has just about completed their attendance. The trickel-down effect will hit the smaller colleges the hardest. Maybe that whole tier of good-but-not-great private schools (Whitman, LaVerne, Whittier, etc on the West Coast) could be impacted.

In the late 80's, the last of the baby boomer/genX population bubble moved through college to be followed by a shortage of new students. Didn't Cal, to address this during the early 90s by offering early retirement to some faculty to both "right-size" and allow advancement for junior faculty?

---

I forgot to mention it earlier, but there is already an example in the Bay Area. Notre Dame de Namur University, a Division II Catholic school roughly equidistant between San Francisco and Stanford, is closing down next year. Having already ended their athletics program this year, NDNU had been going through declining enrollment and lawsuits in the past 5+ years, so the school was in a fragile situation already. COVID-19 also led to the shutdowns of MacMurray College (D3) and Urbana University (D2) among others.

Also, was this the Economist article you read - College blues: Could a fifth of America's colleges really face the chop?

---

That's the article. Thanks, SB20! The Economist is an excellent mag. I don't see how they pack so much info into every issue. Maybe the last publication that really attempts to distinguish between reporting and opinion and hasn't dumbed down their journalism to "Top 5 Reasons for ..." articles.

Back in the 70s, I romanced a girl who went to Notre Dame in Belmont, so I was on campus several times. Man, that real estate must be worth a lot now. The girl moved back home to Oakland and went to Holy Names College - she was a math major and plenty smart (except for the fact she dumped me) and she could easily have handled Cal, but she wanted the small college experience. Holy Names and Mills College are two more that may not survive. It will be unfortunate if we lose a lot of those small colleges and kids no longer have that option.

---

It would be interesting to see Mills and ND get rolled into Cal. I could see that happening as a donation from the school to take over debt, etc. and to avoid the demolition of the campuses. Both are fairly close to each other as well. My kids played water polo at both of those schools since they had pools. Both of those schools would also be pretty rich real estate plays. Graduate and staff housing locations, perhaps a new Medical School campus, etc. Nice places.

---

I think you meant Mills and Holy Names getting rolled into Cal. ND is on the Peninsula, not close to Cal, and if anyone was to gobble them up, it might be Stanford or USF.