This is happening. Deal with it. Might as well prepare now since lack of preparation for the inevitable collapse of the Pac12 helped put us here in the first place. Here's my list, welcome any other ideas (keeping in mind you have to retain 6 men's sports and 8 women's sports to remain DI).

Keep:
Men's and Women's Aquatics (swimming & diving and polo) - obviously we can continue on the tradition and remain very competitive wherever we end up, especially with strong alumni support/donations.
Men's and Women's Basketball - need one revenue sport and its Title IX equivalent & easier to turn that kind of sport around than the other…
Men's & Women's Golf - fundraising. Enough said.
Men's & Women's Tennis - fundraising. Enough said.
Rugby - I realize this isn't an NCAA sport but they pay for themselves and plenty of others that aren't going to be around soon…
Men's & women's cross country - we need a 6th men's NCAA sport and it costs nothing, doesn't need a facility & is appealing for our demographic regardless of funding level & the MWC is a competitive CC conference.
Women's volleyball - need to keep the facility & why kill off a popular women's sport we can remain competitive in
Women's softball - same as above…or at least close enough.

Cut:
Men's football. Half of our nightmares immediately evaporate - especially in a conference that doesn't care about football & would still smack us around
Men's and Women's Gymnastics. This sport has been dead at the collegiate level for over a decade & is a pain to support. Why not?
Men's and women's soccer. Just doesn't make sense and we can finally knock down Edwards for new housing which means…
Men's and women's track and field - both indoor and outdoor. Bummer since they're finally just trending the right direction and it'll break my heart but being realistic - makes little sense after knocking down Edwards & very expensive sport to remain relevant in…with an alumni base that'll never pony up like golf, tennis and rugby.
Baseball - it's just time…and that's more student housing right there or a softball field since we're keeping tennis & softball.
Men's and women's crew/rowing - this will be a tough pill to swallow because of our long proud tradition…but difficult choices need to be made, it's an expensive sport that will no longer have a workout facility in a conference that doesn't care about the sport.
Women's beach volleyball…huh?
Women's Field hockey…anyone remember we still sponsor this? And we are going to be facing multiple lawsuits regardless so what's another one…
Women's Lacrosse - see above. And we can finally abandon up-keep of those worthless facilities above/around Memorial Stadium & Clark Kerr anyway…

Now, what to do with Memorial Stadium…give it to rugby? They'll fill it more than football does…and if we need to keep any of the women's field sports that gives them a better home…but the whole reason we were letting those minor non-revenue women's sports stick around was to help balance out football/Title IX so…

Let me know if I left anything out. Debate welcome. But a great purge of some sort is coming.

Baseball - Gone
gymnastics- Gone
Men's Tennis- Gone
Rowing- Gone

All Non BIPOC sports anyway.

Football should be cut- but they won't because they can't help losing money.

Move to another conference with basketball as the hope and that's a wrap

Rugby has to be moved to a club sport cuz it's a club sport and eats up Title IX spots. Men's gymnastics, men's and women's track/xcountry.
Rowing and all the water sports are endowed.

coachdeke said:

---

Rowing and all the water sports are endowed.

---

Correct.
They arent going anywhere.

BayAreaClubCoach said:

---

Cut:

Men's football. Half of our nightmares immediately evaporate - especially in a conference that doesn't care about football & would still smack us around

---

You forgot about the $18 million per year in stadium debt interest expense on the bonds that go out to 2112.
That annual payment then jumps to $26 million per year in 2032.
The peak arrives in 2039 at $37 million per year.

That's not going away just because football gets cut.

I realize that cutting football is pie in the sky & we have a massive amount of stadium debt that won't be going away no matter what we do…but it would be interesting to see a REAL cost benefit analysis (one not done by alumni or athletics) of how much we lose on football. I'm assuming the figure is staggering? I know the traditional defense of football teams in the red is "but enrollment, alumni engagement and donations!" But…we all know how that's working in Berkeley - part of the reason we are here in the first place. Is it worth considering how much more we'd be able to contribute to stadium debt by just cutting our loses and turning that whole facility into the primary athletic department instead of Haas (let's just say it DOES NOT impress recruits) and doing a better job finding other uses for that venue? Since crew/rowing is endowed (thanks for adding that), that means we can cut another sport of each gender…maybe that's cross country? But like I said before, costs almost nothing, popular with our demographic & could possibly be competitive in a good conference (MWC) for it. Maybe that means we cut softball to add more student housing and men's tennis if they are no longer carrying their weight? If we don't want one more lawsuit/need more Title IX padding, we keep women's soccer (given it's popularity) and now they and rugby use Memorial as their home venue? And work like hell to bring in more events to use the stadium whenever Rugby and soccer aren't?

Someone noted Chancellor Christ is retiring next year…that's a twist…to me that means a head honcho that can make very difficult decisions that anyone with a career still in front of them will not make. Could she tell Knowlton that this is going down now so he has time to find a way out before she announces radical changes later in the year? Obviously no AD or U President/Chancellor who still has career aspirations is going to be willing to be known as "the one who cut football"…but a department with an "interim AD" and Chancellor with nothing to lose?

rugby would be the 1st sport to cut (reclassified to club status) along with baseball

clubguy, title ix is contingent upon "counters" (the number of athletes on a roster), your comment about the # of mens and women's sports is not factual in the real world

reality is that nobody gives a **** about rugby other than jack clark & the 200+ people that show up for matches against life university...how many fans will be at memorial stadium for the auburn game on september 9th

football makes tens of millions of dollars a year & basically subsidizes the entire knowlton led bureaucracy, if you knew how to read financial statements u would already know that

but agreed that a great purge is coming & the number of teams will be rightsized to 16

Me thinks we are going to the ACC, no?

not completely true

there are three prongs to comply with. Only prong 1 requires same ratio as student population

we meet prong one with a goal of moving to prong one

Agree with Shocky that men's rugby has a lot of players, so moving them to club level will go along way toward reaching that goal

DiabloWags said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

clubguy, title ix is contingent upon "counters" (the number of athletes on a roster), your comment about the # of mens and women's sports is not factual in the real world

---

Correct Shocky.

Title IX compliance comes down to athletic rosters that reflect the ratio of the men's to women's undergraduate population.

Technically, we've never been strictly in compliance, but have been able to skirt that due to favorable surveys (that get handed out to the female undergraduate student population) asking if they believe that the University is making an effort to provide opportunities (athletic and recreational) as well as facilities to female students and athletes. - - - Since these surveys have shown that Cal has been "progressing towards compliance with Title-IX" athletic rosters havent actually had to abide by the actual ratio.

But once a female intercollegiate sport gets cut, we then have to abide by the exact ratio and make sure that all athletic rosters reflect that ratio.

---

HoopDreams said:

---

not completely true

there are three prongs to comply with. Only prong 1 requires same ratio as student population

we meet prong one with a goal of moving to prong one

Agree with Shocky that men's rugby has a lot of players, so moving them to club level will go along way toward reaching that goal

---

My point is that as soon as a female sport is cut, rosters must be in compliance by adhering to the same ratio as the student male/female undergrad population.

I also agree with Shocky.
Rugby will be the first to get cut as a Varsity sport and go Club given 54 athletes on the roster.
Jack Clark wont be happy, especially given that he will lose his ability to "tag" recruits at the admissions office.
But it's reality.

DiabloWags said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

not completely true

there are three prongs to comply with. Only prong 1 requires same ratio as student population

we meet prong one with a goal of moving to prong one

Agree with Shocky that men's rugby has a lot of players, so moving them to club level will go along way toward reaching that goal

---

My point is that as soon as a female sport is cut, rosters must be in compliance by adhering to the same ratio as the student male/female undergrad population.

I also agree with Shocky.
Rugby will be the first to get cut as a Varsity sport and go Club given 54 athletes on the roster.
Jack Clark wont be happy, especially given that he will lose his ability to "tag" recruits at the admissions office.
But it's reality.

---

They will still have the ability to "tag" athletes as other club sports have had.

"tagging" is exactly how the varsity blues scandal supplied "value" to wealthy parents who wanted their dumb azz kids with prestigious degrees

A pretty realistic proposal by Cal Strong
Essentially entering the B1G as a Football Only member and at a massively discounted share.

Here was the summary page of the proposal Cal Strong submitted, which he offered to them for free. He also offered to come on board as a consultant, which they were considering for a time -- but then it seems they rejected.



The Problem with joining the B1G (if they would even offer us):

The Apple deal is supposed to pay institutions $20m/year. The B1G dealt a bit less than $59m to its institutions last year. So that is an approximately $39m difference.

Even if Cal were extended an invitation ioin the B1G, it is unlikely we would receive an equal share. Thus the difference would almost certainly be far less than $39m.

Nebraska had to wait six years to receive a full B1G share, and they have more devoted fans than Cal does at present. Despite six consecutive losing years, Nebraska routinely boasts 60,000-80,000 in the stands, and it was considered a "crisis" last year when attendance dipped below 50,000 for the first and only time ever. In contrast, we are nowhere close to that due to 16 consecutive subpar years of football, as well as many years of weak men's and women's basketball.

If Cal were to enter the B1G, it very likely we would have to wait at least 6 years to receive a full share. In the meantime, we would likely get substantially less than the $59m/year that full-share B1G members received last year.

If, like Nebraska, we get 55% for the intermediate future. That would be about $35m/year for several years.

This would represent a significant increase ($15m) from the Apple Deal. But would the $15m bump be enough to justify sending hundreds of student athletes in non-revenue sports all over the country, often to remote areas, away from their classes every single week?

Even if the B1G were to invite us to join them, this scenario would not be ideal.

The Solution:

My proposal would take the form of proposing an even lower (37%?) share than what Nebraska received for perhaps even more (5-7?) of years, but as a "football only" member of the B1G. We would agree to schedule B1G teams for most of our out of conference games for basketball and non-revenue sports, but those teams would either join the MWC or another conference (perhaps the WCC) until we become full share members of the B1G.

I believe that this would be more attractive for both the B1G and for Cal. The B1G conference would have access to our media market and recruiting footprint for football, but wouldn't have to send their non-revenue teams here all the time. And they could give us a smaller share of their pie for the mid-term future. Of course this proposal can be easily modified to include men's and women's basketball as part of the immediate B1G package. Including basketball would require the B1G to shift our initial share upwards to offset travel expenses.

I have read reporting that some of the presidents of the more elite academic institutions within the B1G are interested in adding Cal for our academic reputation. In addition to its other benefits, this would be a way for them to sell our inclusion to their ADs and to the other presidents.

New Idea about Cal and Realignment | Bear Insider

BayAreaClubCoach said:

---

Thanks for informing me better. My point is that hard decisions are going to be made and it's going to piss a lot of interest groups off…but now it's coming. 100%. Even considering if the ACC let's us beg our way in, the travel expenses alone and TV money won't even come close to the other Power Conferences. So considering the endowed sports, football reality and increased Title IX scrutiny, my updated proposal for the restructured athletic department is:
Keep -
Men's Football
Men's Basketball
Men's Golf
Men's Rowing
Men's Water Polo
Men's Swimming and Diving
(Because the NCAA minimum is 6 men's sports)
Women's Basketball
Women's Golf
Women's Crew
Women's Water Polo
Women's Swimming and Diving
Women's Gymnastics
Women's Volleyball
Women's Track and Field (indoor and outdoor) and women's cross country

That keeps the endowed sports, successful women's sports (even if barely anyone competes in the sport), politically impossible sports to cut, and should satisfy Title IX requirements given football (13 women's sports with a distance focused track squad counting those women 3 times and not needing a track).

Cut everyone else. This allows us to turn Edwards and the baseball complex, tennis complex & the fields above/around Memorial and Clark Kerr into student housing and shed dead weight. I'm sure I'm still pissing other sports interests off (sorry Tennis)…but the latest reports are indicating the ACC does not want us. We will not recognize Cal athletics in a couple years one way or the other.

---

Probably can't cut field hockey, as the coaching position is endowed.

Stu Gordon will not allow baseball to be cut.

Does this mean kiss the upgrade to the SB field good bye?

dan, cal athletics is fast tracking a path to financial bankruptcy, baseball is gonna be cut regardless of stu gordon's commitment to a losing program (the days of bob milano winning championships are sadly in the rearview mirror)

shocky's bottom line:

there's gonna be significantly less revenues for the athletic department in the forseeable future & that's why knowlton's decision in fiscal year 2022 to borrow $11,000,000 wuz financial malpractice...apologists will argue that borrowing money from the central campus is a standard operating mechanism, these are not ordinary times & the "good ol' days" of collegiate athletics (for schools not already in the sec or big 10) are firmly in the rearview mirror

the financial reality for the cal athletic department is significantly less revenues in the future primarily from declining media rights revenues & donations to the athletic department due to the growth of nil fundraising & the aging (and fatigued) berkeley donor community which is not gaining any traction (building a pipeline) with younger future megadonors...the fake berkeley fundraising numbers are not dollars that are actually collected, ok?

so whether it be the con artist & his evil as **** confidante jennifer simon-o'neil continuing their bureaucratic wayward lack of vision or new leadership such as andrew mcgraw as the next athletic director, cal will no longer be able to field 30+ teams (many of them underperforming for years) & will need to cut teams/reduce expenses

the next athletic director will need to quickly work within title ix constraints in revamping the currently bloated athletic department with the following teams in a new much more streamlined operation that competes for championships:

1. football
2. men's basketball
3. men's swimming & diving
4. men's water polo
5. men's golf
6. men's tennis
7. women's basketball
8. softball
9. women's soccer
10. women's swimming & diving
11. women's water polo
12. women's volleyball
13. women's golf
14. women's tennis
15. women's rowing
16. women's gymnastics

baseball & both track and field/cross country programs would be terminated with current schollys honored thru graduation & the valuable land upon which evans field & edwards stadium r situated would be repurposed...men's soccer, women's lacrosse & women's field hockey would be shuttered...women's beach volleyball players would be offered roster spots with the failing women's volleyball program thru graduation...men's rugby, men's rowing & men's gymnastics would become club sports, fully expect jack clark to go nuclear on this necessary decision in his predictable myopic rage to defend his turf

not biz as usual in berkeley (or the pac 12)#

The men's sports that will survive are those that can pay for themselves, and whatever number of women's sports are needed to comply numerically with Title IX. Extending that logic, football only survives if a) it can raise enough money to support itself, or b) you can convince the Cal administration that cutting football would reduce academic contributions, for which the evidence, as I understand it, is very mixed. I doubt you can convince anyone that enrollment will plummet without football, given that student attendance appears to be a small fraction of the total student body.

Men's tennis coach is endowed

How many millions is Stu Gordon ready to cough up to sponsor both baseball and softball (Title IX will dictate that he sponsor a women's sport or nothing - so softball makes the most sense) and keep their facilities from student housing and all the revenue that will bring in?

Looks like the tennis coach has a job but no team to coach then…repurpose them to admin?

sports where the coach's salary is endowed are unlikely to be cut, given that a big chunk of the expense is paid for by donors. If I have time at some point, I will spreadsheet the rosters of all the sports by number, and then we can analyze where the cuts are likely to come.

Just curious....

Have you ever been to a Cal water polo match or Cal swim meet?
How about a rugby match?

Yes. I've been to rugby games.

update re: sports teams cutting, conference affiliations & co chartering planes with stanford
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/110786/0

CalFanatic said:

---

Me thinks we are going to the ACC, no?

---

Funny how nobody on this board ever mentioned one word about ACC until about a week ago, then all of a sudden, they are our new best friend throwing us a lifeline-NOT! Thank the Lord there are some cooler heads over there saying NO! As those Clemson fans like to say: we don't need another bottom feeder FB program feeding off us.