Photo by Berkeley.edu

Chancellor Christ Highlights Plans Going Forward as AD Hiring Nears

March 29, 2018
8,044

The following is a statement offered by Chancellor Carol Christ:

Now that external consultants have finished their detailed review of our intercollegiate athletics program and submitted a number of valuable findings and recommendations, I am writing to provide an update to the Berkeley campus and alumni communities on my plans and intentions.

Intercollegiate athletics (IA) at Berkeley has been relentlessly studied for more than two decades by a combination of eight committees and task forces and by two consulting firms. Yet, the results have been less clear than one might expect, given the extent of these repeated studies. The reason, I've come to believe, lies in a certain reluctance to confront contradictions among the various goals the campus holds for itself and Cal Athletics. The most recent report by the Task Force on Intercollegiate Athletics, released in June 2017 by the previous administration, said it well: “IA cannot simultaneously satisfy the three following conditions: balance its budget, assume sole responsibility for the debt service on the football stadium project, and maintain the current size and scope of its program.” That task force saw a need for an independent analysis of the athletic program’s finances and operations and proposed that the campus engage a consulting firm that could make recommendations for achieving a sustainable financial model. We subsequently contracted with Collegiate Sports Associates (CSA), one of the most respected firms in the country, to perform that work. (The costs were paid by donors). This happens to be the first time IA has been reviewed by a consultancy with specialized expertise in collegiate athletics programs. From the very beginning, CSA’s experts displayed a sophisticated and nuanced understanding not only of IA, in general, but also of Berkeley’s unique attributes, challenges and opportunities. They conducted more than 122 interviews with the broadest possible range of stakeholders, reviewed all previous reports and studies and carefully compiled and reviewed data from Cal Athletics, the NCAA, the PAC-12 conference and a number of our peer institutions.

We have received CSA's report, and I am releasing it to the Berkeley community.

In this memo, I articulate the principles that will guide my decisions in regard to athletics and describe our path forward. I believe that IA offers great value both to our student-athletes and to the campus community. It gives our students the opportunity to compete in

their sports at the highest level and to develop the qualities of mind and character that highly disciplined, team-based sports build. It offers students, faculty, staff, alumni, parents and friends of the university unique opportunities to come together as a community, one of the ways we feel our institutional spirit and identity. And for many of our alumni, sporting events play an indispensable role in their continuing relationship with, and support for, our university. These are just some of the reasons sports are an important part of the American collegiate experience. I believe Berkeley can and will have an intercollegiate athletics program that reflects and embodies the aspirations and excellence that characterize our university as a whole. The core of our commitment to athletics must be the student-athlete experience — the opportunities afforded students both in their sports and in their academic programs, their success in the classroom and their development as individuals in all aspects of their character and experience. Timely graduation rates are a critical measure of IA's success, as are the fullness and rigor of our athletes' academic programs. Of course, we want our teams to win, but even more we want every student-athlete to thrive at Berkeley, to have the best university education we can offer. Just as we expect IA to operate with the highest level of integrity and care for students’ welfare, the campus must hold itself to equally high standards for their education, as it does for all students. Another core principle of our IA program is gender equity. In terms of student-athlete participation, Title IX provides universities and colleges with three options, or “prongs,” when it comes to compliance with the law. (You can read more about the prongs here.) Because of our commitment to gender equity, I have decided to move from Prong 3 to Prong 1 compliance by 2021 in order to provide equitable participation for our male and female students and to meet our obligations under Title IX. (An institution satisfies Prong 1 by providing substantially proportionate participation opportunities for its male and female student-athletes, consistent with the percentage of men and women in its full-time undergraduate student body population. Prong 3, on the other hand, supports gender equity by requiring schools to add sports for the underrepresented gender whenever there is sufficient student interest, ability and opportunity for intercollegiate competition, according to a set of specified criteria). To me, maintaining an athletics program that is substantially proportionate to our undergraduate population seems more consistent with Title IX's defining goal of gender equity.

Moreover, because Cal Athletics already struggles to support 30 sports, it seems unwise to continue with a compliance prong that requires us to add more sports whenever the aforementioned criteria are met.

Moving to Prong 1 without adding sports will likely require a reduction in roster spots for men's sports. I have asked for an analysis of what the actual impact of this change will be when we make the transition in 2021, and we will share that information when it is ready. In addition, we must make a commitment to gender equity in our facilities for men's and women's sports. Most immediately, this will involve building courts for beach volleyball (our most recently added sport) and improving our facilities for softball. I now turn to the budget and the financial model for IA. I believe that continuing deficits in any campus unit, like those in IA, are corrosive. They erode trust and fiscal responsibility even when they stem not from fiscal or administrative mismanagement, but from structural factors — an imbalance, as in the case with IA, between available revenues and the program’s size and scope. Because of the multiple risks of continuing to carry IA deficits — both for the campus and for the department itself— I am requiring IA to achieve a balanced budget by 2020, when UC Berkeley must balance its budget.

A plan to balance the budget will have the following five elements: First, I have already announced that the campus will take responsibility for the portion of the football stadium debt that is related to the cost of seismic retrofitting and construction. The seismic safety of our facilities, particularly one used as extensively by the campus community as California Memorial Stadium, is a campus responsibility. Beyond that, key decisions regarding the original financial model for the stadium were made by campus and IA leadership together, and thus there should be shared accountability for the results.

Second, as part of a broader campus-wide effort, I will review and seek to simplify how funds flow back and forth between IA and the campus. The opacity of IA’s finances results, in large part, from the complexity of transfers between the department and the campus central ledger. Although IA receives an annual allocation from the campus, it also contributes revenue back to the campus in a variety of different ways. I will review thissystem with the goal of simplifying and rationalizing it. Third, IA will develop a plan to substantially increase its revenues. The key to a sustainable financial model for IA, as for the campus, lies in increasing and diversifying revenues. The CSA report, like earlier consulting reports, sees significant potential for new revenues. We are, quite simply, underperforming on the revenue front. Football and men’s basketball will be critical to any revenue plan and sustainable financial model because they are the only sports that generate significant revenue. It is therefore essential that we work to support the consistent, competitive success of these two athletic programs and provide a high-quality game day experience for fans and supporters. In addition, facilities and advertising agreements offer further significant revenue opportunities. We are also examining alternate uses of real estate in IA’s current control. For example, we are in the early stages of planning and analysis for future uses of Edwards Stadium.

Beyond the need to find new facilities for the teams that currently use that venue, a number of interesting and exciting ideas have been proposed for Edwards Stadium that warrant careful examination. Here, too, I am committed to sharing updates with you as our work proceeds. Fourth, we must increase philanthropic support. We are underperforming in the area of philanthropy. Our upcoming campaign gives us an excellent opportunity to increase support for athletics. I believe that a sustainable, realistic and transparent financial model for IA, along with the implementation of other recommendations offered in the CSA report, will enable us to rebuild and strengthen the relationship between Cal Athletics and the many donors who care deeply about the program, our student-athletes and our university.

The final step in developing a balanced budget and a sustainable financial model for IA is reviewing the program’s size and scope. Cutting sports, or transitioning them to club status, should be a last resort. We should not take this step until we assess the impact of reforming the way in which funds flow between the campus and IA and until we have a better sense of the extent to which improved revenue generation and philanthropic support will address the athletic program’s budgetary challenges. With clarity about what must now be done, I look forward with great anticipation to our selection of a new athletic director — an essential

partner who will ensure that we make good on these principles and the full range of CSA’s findings and recommendations. I am very pleased with the level of interest this opening generated across the country; the candidate pool is deep and impressive. I am certain that in April we will be introducing a person with the necessary skills and experience to help us build an intercollegiate athletics program that is both financially sustainable and capable of serving the needs and interests of our student-athletes. I am confident that, together, we can usher in a new era of excellence for Cal Athletics that is consistent with and supportive of our university’s mission, standards and values.

Discussion from...

Chancellor Christ Highlights Plans Going Forward as AD Hiring Nears

Alkiadt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It appears to me that she "gets it", and will make some bold moves.
Finally.
UCBerkGrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sounds promising, but hard to get too excited without knowing the specific plans. She eloquently layouts the challenges we face but doesn't get into solutions. That's what I'm most interested in hearing.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My main take-aways from each of her main points:

1. Shifting the seismic retrofit portion of the debt to the University is going to happen (which is good).
2. I'll be honest, I don't know enough about how money flows back forth between the University and the departments, therefore don't have an opinion. (neutral)
3A. She understands and wants strong football and men's basketball programs (good).
3B. She seems willing to further sell-out the gameday experience more to increase revenues i.e. more advertising. (bad)
4. The added philanthropy point is a throw-awa that every chancellor at every school should always add to their 'vision' or 'plan' (no opinion).
5. When combined with the Title IX statements, cutting sports, particularly men's sports are on the table (regrettable, but probably necessary).
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UCBerkGrad said:

Sounds promising, but hard to get too excited without knowing the specific plans. She eloquently layouts the challenges we face but doesn't get into solutions. That's what I'm most interested in hearing.
I agree. I am pleased that Cal will be moving to Title IX Prong 1. I am also encouraged by her comments regarding cutting teams (something for which I have been advocating for many years). There is no excuse for the deficits. Stop the subsidies.

OTOH, we have heard far too many times that Cal is going to do something to address the AD'S financial issues without substantive action. Color me hopeful but not convinced....

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here is my post from the Insiders board:

Some thoughts come to mind.

1) This was incredibly transparent, including diplomatically stated admissions where the Cal administration has failed. I particularly enjoyed the shot she took at the myriad of studies.

2) She spent a lot of time looking at I/A and I really can't take exception to any fo her analysis.

3) When was the last time a Cal Chancellor came out and said we have to focus upon and improve in football and basketball? That is a big F/U to certain faculty members. When the last time a Chancellor essentially came out and said sports was important and necessary? These sound like small and obvious things, but at Cal they are not.

4) There seems to be a focus on cutting sports, probably due to the last debacle of sports cuts in mind. But the Chancellor didn't say she was cutting sports. It was more that cutting sports is the carrot and stick to incentivize revenue growth, and is not necessarily the case that sports will be cut (though I personally think Cal probably does have too many teams). Critical to her analysis of being sustainable, is that Cal I/A will not benefit from a subsidy (a real vocal point for criticism from faculty) which it gives back in overhead and other charges (a vocal point for criticism from donors). Cal will be the only school in the Pac (or maybe in Power 5) which does not subsidize athletics, but in return, Cal also may not be charging I/A many administration expenses. IMO, if Cal I/A can be financially independent, many of the campus resentments and impediments against sports will ultimately disappear.


Let me add, this is not the type of communication to get into the weeds with details. That likely will come from the new AD, and over some time, with specific revenue initiatives. Also, with Title 9 compliance by cutting the huge rosters of certain men's programs, don't assume that if some men's teams are cut, women's teams will be immune from cuts either.

That is all I got...
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

"Cutting sports, or transitioning them to club status, should be a last resort. We should not take this step until we assess the impact of reforming the way in which funds flow between the campus and IA and until we have a better sense of the extent to which improved revenue generation and philanthropic support will address the athletic program's budgetary challenges."
That's a good sign. The chancellor wants to give the supporters of each sport another opportunity to raise enough money to show that "their" sport should not be on the chopping block.

On the other hand, if I understand the "Prong 1" correctly, it means that because 53% of Cal undergrads are women, about 53% of Cal varsity athletes will be women. It's implied that will require reducing the number of athletes on men's teams, and it seems doubtful that can be fully accomplished simply by eliminating walk-ons from men's teams, or by leaving one or two men's athletic scholarships unused here and there, which leaves us with the reality that one or more men's sports will lose varsity status, presumably based on the cost of maintaining it as a varsity sport balanced with how much money is donated specifically for that sport.


OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Here is my post from the Insiders board:

Some thoughts come to mind.

1) This was incredibly transparent, including diplomatically stated admissions where the Cal administration has failed. I particularly enjoyed the shot she took at the myriad of studies.

2) She spent a lot of time looking at I/A and I really can't take exception to any fo her analysis.

3) When was the last time a Cal Chancellor came out and said we have to focus upon and improve in football and basketball? That is a big F/U to certain faculty members. When the last time a Chancellor essentially came out and said sports was important and necessary? These sound like small and obvious things, but at Cal they are not.

4) There seems to be a focus on cutting sports, probably due to the last debacle of sports cuts in mind. But the Chancellor didn't say she was cutting sports. It was more that cutting sports is the carrot and stick to incentivize revenue growth, and is not necessarily the case that sports will be cut (though I personally think Cal probably does have too many teams). Critical to her analysis of being sustainable, is that Cal I/A will not benefit from a subsidy (a real vocal point for criticism from faculty) which it gives back in overhead and other charges (a vocal point for criticism from donors). Cal will be the only school in the Pac (or maybe in Power 5) which does not subsidize athletics, but in return, Cal also may not be charging I/A many administration expenses. IMO, if Cal I/A can be financially independent, many of the campus resentments and impediments against sports will ultimately disappear.


Let me add, this is not the type of communication to get into the weeds with details. That likely will come from the new AD, and over some time, with specific revenue initiatives. Also, with Title 9 compliance by cutting the huge rosters of certain men's programs, don't assume that if some men's teams are cut, women's teams will be immune from cuts either.

That is all I got...
I think your number 4 is crucial as a starting point. I note the specific emphasis she gave to needing to understand the flow of dollars back and forth between I/A and the university. I have been a proponent of I/A running at least break even, but that has to be in real dollars. Everything it earns, including concessions, needs to go in the I/A bucket. Everything it uses from the university needs to be fairly charged. There needs to be clear accounting and not just funny cross charges. Faculty and others need to know that when I/A is breaking even, it is really breaking even. Donors need to know that if they give to I/A, none of their money is getting syphoned off.

You can't cut or save sports if you don't know the true cost. If you are going look at baseball and decide whether to cut it, what is it really costing. Then you can go to the donors and say with confidence "baseball cost $x. Thumbs up or down? Up to you. You raise that, it stays. You don't, it goes." You can't do that with a bunch of phony, eyeball it, cross charges based more on politics or plain laziness than actual numbers.

My assumption would be that, at least at first, they are going to ask football to essentially pay for women's sports, since they really can't cut them, and the other men's sports are going to be determined by donations/revenue. Since she said we can't add sports, and we don't fulfill prong 1, that means at minimum men's roster spots are going to need to go, but I don't see how that can get us there. Even if it could, it doesn't make sense to me to fatally wound every program rather than just kill off a couple and keep the rest healthy.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Here is my post from the Insiders board:

Some thoughts come to mind.

1) This was incredibly transparent, including diplomatically stated admissions where the Cal administration has failed. I particularly enjoyed the shot she took at the myriad of studies.

2) She spent a lot of time looking at I/A and I really can't take exception to any fo her analysis.

3) When was the last time a Cal Chancellor came out and said we have to focus upon and improve in football and basketball? That is a big F/U to certain faculty members. When the last time a Chancellor essentially came out and said sports was important and necessary? These sound like small and obvious things, but at Cal they are not.

4) There seems to be a focus on cutting sports, probably due to the last debacle of sports cuts in mind. But the Chancellor didn't say she was cutting sports. It was more that cutting sports is the carrot and stick to incentivize revenue growth, and is not necessarily the case that sports will be cut (though I personally think Cal probably does have too many teams). Critical to her analysis of being sustainable, is that Cal I/A will not benefit from a subsidy (a real vocal point for criticism from faculty) which it gives back in overhead and other charges (a vocal point for criticism from donors). Cal will be the only school in the Pac (or maybe in Power 5) which does not subsidize athletics, but in return, Cal also may not be charging I/A many administration expenses. IMO, if Cal I/A can be financially independent, many of the campus resentments and impediments against sports will ultimately disappear.


Let me add, this is not the type of communication to get into the weeds with details. That likely will come from the new AD, and over some time, with specific revenue initiatives. Also, with Title 9 compliance by cutting the huge rosters of certain men's programs, don't assume that if some men's teams are cut, women's teams will be immune from cuts either.

That is all I got...
I think your number 4 is crucial as a starting point. I note the specific emphasis she gave to needing to understand the flow of dollars back and forth between I/A and the university. I have been a proponent of I/A running at least break even, but that has to be in real dollars. Everything it earns, including concessions, needs to go in the I/A bucket. Everything it uses from the university needs to be fairly charged. There needs to be clear accounting and not just funny cross charges. Faculty and others need to know that when I/A is breaking even, it is really breaking even. Donors need to know that if they give to I/A, none of their money is getting syphoned off.

You can't cut or save sports if you don't know the true cost. If you are going look at baseball and decide whether to cut it, what is it really costing. Then you can go to the donors and say with confidence "baseball cost $x. Thumbs up or down? Up to you. You raise that, it stays. You don't, it goes." You can't do that with a bunch of phony, eyeball it, cross charges based more on politics or plain laziness than actual numbers.

My assumption would be that, at least at first, they are going to ask football to essentially pay for women's sports, since they really can't cut them, and the other men's sports are going to be determined by donations/revenue. Since she said we can't add sports, and we don't fulfill prong 1, that means at minimum men's roster spots are going to need to go, but I don't see how that can get us there. Even if it could, it doesn't make sense to me to fatally wound every program rather than just kill off a couple and keep the rest healthy.
Why can't women's sports be cut? If a sport is a big drain and can't raise donor backing, why shouldn't it be put on the table? Do we have a complete set of criteria for retention/dropping of a sport, beyond financial?

Incidentally, I'm hoping that donor support of a sport as a criterion for retention goes beyond short term donations. Here today, gone tomorrow.
Uthaithani
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't see anything bold or game-changing here. Lip service to "good football," but no real commitment. Nothing here says the trajectory of FB and MBB since the 1960s (steady decline into irrelevance with occasional blips of false hope) is going to change. Cal as a university has had its head up its arse for a long time and I don't see anything here that says that's going to change in any meaningful (positive) way.

Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Christ, keep in mind it's called the "game day experience" and not the "game night experience." If you want my donations, that is.
Mama Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Impressive in content. Hopeful ideas, including moving to Prong 1. Will take some time to read I/A report.
Not going to spin my wheels until we get that outstanding AD. Before any more donations go Cal's way I want transparency.
barabbas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have been involved in a variety of areas on the Cal campus over the past twenty years. I realize, she is not a sports fan per se, but she is among the two or three most impressive people I have met, connected to the campus, including my undergraduate days. She gets it and has the respect of folks that otherwise would attempt to make life miserable for Cal Athletics. The things that I think best describe her are fair, honest, highly intelligent, apolitical and thoughtful. She truly loves the campus and has great respect for its traditions and diverse interests.
travelingbears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Honest question to those in the know: given Christ so confidently mentioned that an AD will be announced in April; have we already hired an AD and simply haven't announced it? Perhaps the new AD hasn't given word to his/her current employer?
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear said:

OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Here is my post from the Insiders board:

Some thoughts come to mind.

1) This was incredibly transparent, including diplomatically stated admissions where the Cal administration has failed. I particularly enjoyed the shot she took at the myriad of studies.

2) She spent a lot of time looking at I/A and I really can't take exception to any fo her analysis.

3) When was the last time a Cal Chancellor came out and said we have to focus upon and improve in football and basketball? That is a big F/U to certain faculty members. When the last time a Chancellor essentially came out and said sports was important and necessary? These sound like small and obvious things, but at Cal they are not.

4) There seems to be a focus on cutting sports, probably due to the last debacle of sports cuts in mind. But the Chancellor didn't say she was cutting sports. It was more that cutting sports is the carrot and stick to incentivize revenue growth, and is not necessarily the case that sports will be cut (though I personally think Cal probably does have too many teams). Critical to her analysis of being sustainable, is that Cal I/A will not benefit from a subsidy (a real vocal point for criticism from faculty) which it gives back in overhead and other charges (a vocal point for criticism from donors). Cal will be the only school in the Pac (or maybe in Power 5) which does not subsidize athletics, but in return, Cal also may not be charging I/A many administration expenses. IMO, if Cal I/A can be financially independent, many of the campus resentments and impediments against sports will ultimately disappear.


Let me add, this is not the type of communication to get into the weeds with details. That likely will come from the new AD, and over some time, with specific revenue initiatives. Also, with Title 9 compliance by cutting the huge rosters of certain men's programs, don't assume that if some men's teams are cut, women's teams will be immune from cuts either.

That is all I got...
I think your number 4 is crucial as a starting point. I note the specific emphasis she gave to needing to understand the flow of dollars back and forth between I/A and the university. I have been a proponent of I/A running at least break even, but that has to be in real dollars. Everything it earns, including concessions, needs to go in the I/A bucket. Everything it uses from the university needs to be fairly charged. There needs to be clear accounting and not just funny cross charges. Faculty and others need to know that when I/A is breaking even, it is really breaking even. Donors need to know that if they give to I/A, none of their money is getting syphoned off.

You can't cut or save sports if you don't know the true cost. If you are going look at baseball and decide whether to cut it, what is it really costing. Then you can go to the donors and say with confidence "baseball cost $x. Thumbs up or down? Up to you. You raise that, it stays. You don't, it goes." You can't do that with a bunch of phony, eyeball it, cross charges based more on politics or plain laziness than actual numbers.

My assumption would be that, at least at first, they are going to ask football to essentially pay for women's sports, since they really can't cut them, and the other men's sports are going to be determined by donations/revenue. Since she said we can't add sports, and we don't fulfill prong 1, that means at minimum men's roster spots are going to need to go, but I don't see how that can get us there. Even if it could, it doesn't make sense to me to fatally wound every program rather than just kill off a couple and keep the rest healthy.
Why can't women's sports be cut? If a sport is a big drain and can't raise donor backing, why shouldn't it be put on the table? Do we have a complete set of criteria for retention/dropping of a sport, beyond financial?

Incidentally, I'm hoping that donor support of a sport as a criterion for retention goes beyond short term donations. Here today, gone tomorrow.
The Chancellor has stated that she is committed to moving the program to Prong 1. That means roughly 52% of all participants in athletic programs will be women. Cutting women's sports will not get the university to that goal. Men's sports are on the block. (and that is as it should be, IMO)
barabbas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uthaithani said:

I don't see anything bold or game-changing here. Lip service to "good football," but no real commitment. Nothing here says the trajectory of FB and MBB since the 1960s (steady decline into irrelevance with occasional blips of false hope) is going to change. Cal as a university has had its head up its arse for a long time and I don't see anything here that says that's going to change in any meaningful (positive) way.


I agree regarding "bold." Football started to decline in the mid/late 50's. Cal did not make a real effort to recruit African American until 1966-67 and the social climate of the 60's made success very very challenging, so it's easy to see some of the forces that caused Cal athletics to decline.
Currently, we have to deal with the national phenomenon of fans staying home because all the games are on tv and the coverage is so great with high definition tv. Also, the West Coast's late starting times are terrible for fans! there may not be a ton of things to be optimistic about, but I think Chancellor Christ's comments are refreshingly honest and should cause some optimism. Winning and keeping a good coach are fundamental for Cal to become a good or great program.
TheFiatLux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When she was hired I commented I thought she would surprise a lot of people, in a good way. There is something really liberating about taking the position at her age... she's not looking for her next job, she is going to do what she believes is best for the University. She doesn't have to appease special interests groups, who are probably shocked at some of what she has done.

I've had multiple interactions with her, including a surprisingly frank one-on-one. I believe she is the real deal. Like WIAF, I love how she called out some of the ridiculous aspects of past issues so publicly, Good for her.

We should all be thankful every day that Dirks' tenure was brief and over.
TheFiatLux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
travelingbears said:

Honest question to those in the know: given Christ so confidently mentioned that an AD will be announced in April; have we already hired an AD and simply haven't announced it? Perhaps the new AD hasn't given word to his/her current employer?
No, but from what I understand we are close.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

Rushinbear said:

OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Here is my post from the Insiders board:

Some thoughts come to mind.

1) This was incredibly transparent, including diplomatically stated admissions where the Cal administration has failed. I particularly enjoyed the shot she took at the myriad of studies.

2) She spent a lot of time looking at I/A and I really can't take exception to any fo her analysis.

3) When was the last time a Cal Chancellor came out and said we have to focus upon and improve in football and basketball? That is a big F/U to certain faculty members. When the last time a Chancellor essentially came out and said sports was important and necessary? These sound like small and obvious things, but at Cal they are not.

4) There seems to be a focus on cutting sports, probably due to the last debacle of sports cuts in mind. But the Chancellor didn't say she was cutting sports. It was more that cutting sports is the carrot and stick to incentivize revenue growth, and is not necessarily the case that sports will be cut (though I personally think Cal probably does have too many teams). Critical to her analysis of being sustainable, is that Cal I/A will not benefit from a subsidy (a real vocal point for criticism from faculty) which it gives back in overhead and other charges (a vocal point for criticism from donors). Cal will be the only school in the Pac (or maybe in Power 5) which does not subsidize athletics, but in return, Cal also may not be charging I/A many administration expenses. IMO, if Cal I/A can be financially independent, many of the campus resentments and impediments against sports will ultimately disappear.


Let me add, this is not the type of communication to get into the weeds with details. That likely will come from the new AD, and over some time, with specific revenue initiatives. Also, with Title 9 compliance by cutting the huge rosters of certain men's programs, don't assume that if some men's teams are cut, women's teams will be immune from cuts either.

That is all I got...
I think your number 4 is crucial as a starting point. I note the specific emphasis she gave to needing to understand the flow of dollars back and forth between I/A and the university. I have been a proponent of I/A running at least break even, but that has to be in real dollars. Everything it earns, including concessions, needs to go in the I/A bucket. Everything it uses from the university needs to be fairly charged. There needs to be clear accounting and not just funny cross charges. Faculty and others need to know that when I/A is breaking even, it is really breaking even. Donors need to know that if they give to I/A, none of their money is getting syphoned off.

You can't cut or save sports if you don't know the true cost. If you are going look at baseball and decide whether to cut it, what is it really costing. Then you can go to the donors and say with confidence "baseball cost $x. Thumbs up or down? Up to you. You raise that, it stays. You don't, it goes." You can't do that with a bunch of phony, eyeball it, cross charges based more on politics or plain laziness than actual numbers.

My assumption would be that, at least at first, they are going to ask football to essentially pay for women's sports, since they really can't cut them, and the other men's sports are going to be determined by donations/revenue. Since she said we can't add sports, and we don't fulfill prong 1, that means at minimum men's roster spots are going to need to go, but I don't see how that can get us there. Even if it could, it doesn't make sense to me to fatally wound every program rather than just kill off a couple and keep the rest healthy.
Why can't women's sports be cut? If a sport is a big drain and can't raise donor backing, why shouldn't it be put on the table? Do we have a complete set of criteria for retention/dropping of a sport, beyond financial?

Incidentally, I'm hoping that donor support of a sport as a criterion for retention goes beyond short term donations. Here today, gone tomorrow.
The Chancellor has stated that she is committed to moving the program to Prong 1. That means roughly 52% of all participants in athletic programs will be women. Cutting women's sports will not get the university to that goal. Men's sports are on the block. (and that is as it should be, IMO)
There are (were) some men's sports with huge walk-on rosters (e.g, rugby). That will be (or has been) changed. Even golf lost a walk-on spot or two, but the coaches that I talked to believe there program will not be impacted. also expect another women's team (e.g., women rugby) and/or additional women's roster spots. Whether that will get to required number of spots remains to be seen, but that is the plan. Once you get to Prong 1, either gender's teams are on the chopping block depending on how team cuts were made.
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So when they add a women's sport that no-one cares about, will sportswriters chastise us for not attending the games?
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chapman_is_Gone said:

So when they add a women's sport that no-one cares about, will sportswriters chastise us for not attending the games?


Just ignore the 19 y/o and you ain't be triggered by her college article.
NVBear78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

71Bear said:

Rushinbear said:

OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Here is my post from the Insiders board:

Some thoughts come to mind.

1) This was incredibly transparent, including diplomatically stated admissions where the Cal administration has failed. I particularly enjoyed the shot she took at the myriad of studies.

2) She spent a lot of time looking at I/A and I really can't take exception to any fo her analysis.

3) When was the last time a Cal Chancellor came out and said we have to focus upon and improve in football and basketball? That is a big F/U to certain faculty members. When the last time a Chancellor essentially came out and said sports was important and necessary? These sound like small and obvious things, but at Cal they are not.

4) There seems to be a focus on cutting sports, probably due to the last debacle of sports cuts in mind. But the Chancellor didn't say she was cutting sports. It was more that cutting sports is the carrot and stick to incentivize revenue growth, and is not necessarily the case that sports will be cut (though I personally think Cal probably does have too many teams). Critical to her analysis of being sustainable, is that Cal I/A will not benefit from a subsidy (a real vocal point for criticism from faculty) which it gives back in overhead and other charges (a vocal point for criticism from donors). Cal will be the only school in the Pac (or maybe in Power 5) which does not subsidize athletics, but in return, Cal also may not be charging I/A many administration expenses. IMO, if Cal I/A can be financially independent, many of the campus resentments and impediments against sports will ultimately disappear.


Let me add, this is not the type of communication to get into the weeds with details. That likely will come from the new AD, and over some time, with specific revenue initiatives. Also, with Title 9 compliance by cutting the huge rosters of certain men's programs, don't assume that if some men's teams are cut, women's teams will be immune from cuts either.

That is all I got...
I think your number 4 is crucial as a starting point. I note the specific emphasis she gave to needing to understand the flow of dollars back and forth between I/A and the university. I have been a proponent of I/A running at least break even, but that has to be in real dollars. Everything it earns, including concessions, needs to go in the I/A bucket. Everything it uses from the university needs to be fairly charged. There needs to be clear accounting and not just funny cross charges. Faculty and others need to know that when I/A is breaking even, it is really breaking even. Donors need to know that if they give to I/A, none of their money is getting syphoned off.

You can't cut or save sports if you don't know the true cost. If you are going look at baseball and decide whether to cut it, what is it really costing. Then you can go to the donors and say with confidence "baseball cost $x. Thumbs up or down? Up to you. You raise that, it stays. You don't, it goes." You can't do that with a bunch of phony, eyeball it, cross charges based more on politics or plain laziness than actual numbers.

My assumption would be that, at least at first, they are going to ask football to essentially pay for women's sports, since they really can't cut them, and the other men's sports are going to be determined by donations/revenue. Since she said we can't add sports, and we don't fulfill prong 1, that means at minimum men's roster spots are going to need to go, but I don't see how that can get us there. Even if it could, it doesn't make sense to me to fatally wound every program rather than just kill off a couple and keep the rest healthy.
Why can't women's sports be cut? If a sport is a big drain and can't raise donor backing, why shouldn't it be put on the table? Do we have a complete set of criteria for retention/dropping of a sport, beyond financial?

Incidentally, I'm hoping that donor support of a sport as a criterion for retention goes beyond short term donations. Here today, gone tomorrow.
The Chancellor has stated that she is committed to moving the program to Prong 1. That means roughly 52% of all participants in athletic programs will be women. Cutting women's sports will not get the university to that goal. Men's sports are on the block. (and that is as it should be, IMO)
There are (were) some men's sports with huge walk-on rosters (e.g, rugby). That will be (or has been) changed. Even golf lost a walk-on spot or two, but the coaches that I talked to believe there program will not be impacted. also expect another women's team (e.g., women rugby) and/or additional women's roster spots. Whether that will get to required number of spots remains to be seen, but that is the plan. Once you get to Prong 1, either gender's teams are on the chopping block depending on how team cuts were made.


Can someone explain how walk-on's for Football and other Men's Sports and Rugby are counted under Title IX?

I love the new Chancellor but did she say that numbers will have to be reduced in football? Is she talking about walk-ons or actual scholarship players? This would seem at odds with the necessity to make football more successful so as to drive revenues for all sports. Are there any schools which either limit their scholarship players or their walk-ons?

And I have never understood how and why Rugby numbers should even be counted since that is not a Varsity sport with scholarships? Rugby has a large number of participants-are they all counted or only in some special categories?

Any clarification would be helpful!
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
No scholarships would be reduced in football, only walk-on slots.
PalyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
and to clarify further, not all walk-on spots, right?
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
No, not nearly all walk-on slots will be cut.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Here is my post from the Insiders board:

Some thoughts come to mind.

1) This was incredibly transparent, including diplomatically stated admissions where the Cal administration has failed. I particularly enjoyed the shot she took at the myriad of studies.

2) She spent a lot of time looking at I/A and I really can't take exception to any fo her analysis.

3) When was the last time a Cal Chancellor came out and said we have to focus upon and improve in football and basketball? That is a big F/U to certain faculty members. When the last time a Chancellor essentially came out and said sports was important and necessary? These sound like small and obvious things, but at Cal they are not.

4) There seems to be a focus on cutting sports, probably due to the last debacle of sports cuts in mind. But the Chancellor didn't say she was cutting sports. It was more that cutting sports is the carrot and stick to incentivize revenue growth, and is not necessarily the case that sports will be cut (though I personally think Cal probably does have too many teams). Critical to her analysis of being sustainable, is that Cal I/A will not benefit from a subsidy (a real vocal point for criticism from faculty) which it gives back in overhead and other charges (a vocal point for criticism from donors). Cal will be the only school in the Pac (or maybe in Power 5) which does not subsidize athletics, but in return, Cal also may not be charging I/A many administration expenses. IMO, if Cal I/A can be financially independent, many of the campus resentments and impediments against sports will ultimately disappear.


Let me add, this is not the type of communication to get into the weeds with details. That likely will come from the new AD, and over some time, with specific revenue initiatives. Also, with Title 9 compliance by cutting the huge rosters of certain men's programs, don't assume that if some men's teams are cut, women's teams will be immune from cuts either.

That is all I got...
I think your number 4 is crucial as a starting point. I note the specific emphasis she gave to needing to understand the flow of dollars back and forth between I/A and the university. I have been a proponent of I/A running at least break even, but that has to be in real dollars. Everything it earns, including concessions, needs to go in the I/A bucket. Everything it uses from the university needs to be fairly charged. There needs to be clear accounting and not just funny cross charges. Faculty and others need to know that when I/A is breaking even, it is really breaking even. Donors need to know that if they give to I/A, none of their money is getting syphoned off.

You can't cut or save sports if you don't know the true cost. If you are going look at baseball and decide whether to cut it, what is it really costing. Then you can go to the donors and say with confidence "baseball cost $x. Thumbs up or down? Up to you. You raise that, it stays. You don't, it goes." You can't do that with a bunch of phony, eyeball it, cross charges based more on politics or plain laziness than actual numbers.

My assumption would be that, at least at first, they are going to ask football to essentially pay for women's sports, since they really can't cut them, and the other men's sports are going to be determined by donations/revenue. Since she said we can't add sports, and we don't fulfill prong 1, that means at minimum men's roster spots are going to need to go, but I don't see how that can get us there. Even if it could, it doesn't make sense to me to fatally wound every program rather than just kill off a couple and keep the rest healthy.
OB:

Basically you are spot on. The main problem in terms of the financial relationship between IA and the campus is the way many things are charged. Out of state athletes are charged the full out-of-state tuition even though the fair cost of their education is less. Employee benefits are charged as a fixed percentage of salaries regardless of the actual cost. Because many IA salaries are very high (AD, most coaches), this grossly over-inflates the actual cost of these benefits (Wilcox's medical insurance doesn't cost 250,000 per year). Also for reasons unknown, IA is charged more for processing donations (9%) than other units on campus (5%). These are relatively easy fixes, although they don't improve the overall campus bottom line.

As for cutting sports, the problem comes down to WHICH ones. The low hanging fruit is probably men's gymnastics or cross country, but these are small programs and won't improve things much. The easiest would be to reduce rugby to a club sport, since it wouldn't affect their schedule or ability to compete for championships, etc., but you saw the **** storm that happened when that was tried before. Same with baseball (we would also become the only P12 school without a baseball team). Aquatics are obviously out--they just got a new state-of-the-art facility and win national championships as a matter of course. Track and field is 2nd only to football and basketball in terms of diversity and minority participation + not having a track team may negatively impact football recruiting (rb's and wr's like to run track). Golf and tennis are pretty well funded. That leaves soccer, but soccer is also a sport with a lot of minority participation. Not saying it can't be done, just that it's not as easy as some suggest.
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
The chancellor said eliminating programs will only come as a last resort

Anyone thinking that it's already been decided to eliminate any programs is off target.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NVBear78 said:

wifeisafurd said:

71Bear said:

Rushinbear said:

OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Here is my post from the Insiders board:

Some thoughts come to mind.

1) This was incredibly transparent, including diplomatically stated admissions where the Cal administration has failed. I particularly enjoyed the shot she took at the myriad of studies.

2) She spent a lot of time looking at I/A and I really can't take exception to any fo her analysis.

3) When was the last time a Cal Chancellor came out and said we have to focus upon and improve in football and basketball? That is a big F/U to certain faculty members. When the last time a Chancellor essentially came out and said sports was important and necessary? These sound like small and obvious things, but at Cal they are not.

4) There seems to be a focus on cutting sports, probably due to the last debacle of sports cuts in mind. But the Chancellor didn't say she was cutting sports. It was more that cutting sports is the carrot and stick to incentivize revenue growth, and is not necessarily the case that sports will be cut (though I personally think Cal probably does have too many teams). Critical to her analysis of being sustainable, is that Cal I/A will not benefit from a subsidy (a real vocal point for criticism from faculty) which it gives back in overhead and other charges (a vocal point for criticism from donors). Cal will be the only school in the Pac (or maybe in Power 5) which does not subsidize athletics, but in return, Cal also may not be charging I/A many administration expenses. IMO, if Cal I/A can be financially independent, many of the campus resentments and impediments against sports will ultimately disappear.


Let me add, this is not the type of communication to get into the weeds with details. That likely will come from the new AD, and over some time, with specific revenue initiatives. Also, with Title 9 compliance by cutting the huge rosters of certain men's programs, don't assume that if some men's teams are cut, women's teams will be immune from cuts either.

That is all I got...
I think your number 4 is crucial as a starting point. I note the specific emphasis she gave to needing to understand the flow of dollars back and forth between I/A and the university. I have been a proponent of I/A running at least break even, but that has to be in real dollars. Everything it earns, including concessions, needs to go in the I/A bucket. Everything it uses from the university needs to be fairly charged. There needs to be clear accounting and not just funny cross charges. Faculty and others need to know that when I/A is breaking even, it is really breaking even. Donors need to know that if they give to I/A, none of their money is getting syphoned off.

You can't cut or save sports if you don't know the true cost. If you are going look at baseball and decide whether to cut it, what is it really costing. Then you can go to the donors and say with confidence "baseball cost $x. Thumbs up or down? Up to you. You raise that, it stays. You don't, it goes." You can't do that with a bunch of phony, eyeball it, cross charges based more on politics or plain laziness than actual numbers.

My assumption would be that, at least at first, they are going to ask football to essentially pay for women's sports, since they really can't cut them, and the other men's sports are going to be determined by donations/revenue. Since she said we can't add sports, and we don't fulfill prong 1, that means at minimum men's roster spots are going to need to go, but I don't see how that can get us there. Even if it could, it doesn't make sense to me to fatally wound every program rather than just kill off a couple and keep the rest healthy.
Why can't women's sports be cut? If a sport is a big drain and can't raise donor backing, why shouldn't it be put on the table? Do we have a complete set of criteria for retention/dropping of a sport, beyond financial?

Incidentally, I'm hoping that donor support of a sport as a criterion for retention goes beyond short term donations. Here today, gone tomorrow.
The Chancellor has stated that she is committed to moving the program to Prong 1. That means roughly 52% of all participants in athletic programs will be women. Cutting women's sports will not get the university to that goal. Men's sports are on the block. (and that is as it should be, IMO)
There are (were) some men's sports with huge walk-on rosters (e.g, rugby). That will be (or has been) changed. Even golf lost a walk-on spot or two, but the coaches that I talked to believe there program will not be impacted. also expect another women's team (e.g., women rugby) and/or additional women's roster spots. Whether that will get to required number of spots remains to be seen, but that is the plan. Once you get to Prong 1, either gender's teams are on the chopping block depending on how team cuts were made.


Can someone explain how walk-on's for Football and other Men's Sports and Rugby are counted under Title IX?

I love the new Chancellor but did she say that numbers will have to be reduced in football? Is she talking about walk-ons or actual scholarship players? This would seem at odds with the necessity to make football more successful so as to drive revenues for all sports. Are there any schools which either limit their scholarship players or their walk-ons?

And I have never understood how and why Rugby numbers should even be counted since that is not a Varsity sport with scholarships? Rugby has a large number of participants-are they all counted or only in some special categories?

Any clarification would be helpful!


Rugby is a varsity team sport with scholarships
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NVBear78 said:




Can someone explain how walk-on's for Football and other Men's Sports and Rugby are counted under Title IX?

I love the new Chancellor but did she say that numbers will have to be reduced in football? Is she talking about walk-ons or actual scholarship players? This would seem at odds with the necessity to make football more successful so as to drive revenues for all sports. Are there any schools which either limit their scholarship players or their walk-ons?


Any clarification would be helpful!
Title IX does NOT count scholarship players. It counts the TOTAL roster, which is defined as players suited up for the first game/match/meet of the season. Right now, football has approximately 40-50 or so walk-ons. Cutting that number by 15-20 wouldn't affect the team in the slightest.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

HHere is my post from the Insiders board:

Some thoughts come to mind.

1) This was incredibly transparent, including diplomatically stated admissions where the Cal administration has failed. I particularly enjoyed the shot she took at the myriad of studies.

2) She spent a lot of time looking at I/A and I really can't take exception to any fo her analysis.

3) When was the last time a Cal Chancellor came out and said we have to focus upon and improve in football and basketball? That is a big F/U to certain faculty members. When the last time a Chancellor essentially came out and said sports was important and necessary? These sound like small and obvious things, but at Cal they are not.

4) There seems to be a focus on cutting sports, probably due to the last debacle of sports cuts in mind. But the Chancellor didn't say she was cutting sports. It was more that cutting sports is the carrot and stick to incentivize revenue growth, and is not necessarily the case that sports will be cut (though I personally think Cal probably does have too many teams). Critical to her analysis of being sustainable, is that Cal I/A will not benefit from a subsidy (a real vocal point for criticism from faculty) which it gives back in overhead and other charges (a vocal point for criticism from donors). Cal will be the only school in the Pac (or maybe in Power 5) which does not subsidize athletics, but in return, Cal also may not be charging I/A many administration expenses. IMO, if Cal I/A can be financially independent, many of the campus resentments and impediments against sports will ultimately disappear.


Let me add, this is not the type of communication to get into the weeds with details. That likely will come from the new AD, and over some time, with specific revenue initiatives. Also, with Title 9 compliance by cutting the huge rosters of certain men's programs, don't assume that if some men's teams are cut, women's teams will be immune from cuts either.

That is all I got...
I think your number 4 is crucial as a starting point. I note the specific emphasis she gave to needing to understand the flow of dollars back and forth between I/A and the university. I have been a proponent of I/A running at least break even, but that has to be in real dollars. Everything it earns, including concessions, needs to go in the I/A bucket. Everything it uses from the university needs to be fairly charged. There needs to be clear accounting and not just funny cross charges. Faculty and others need to know that when I/A is breaking even, it is really breaking even. Donors need to know that if they give to I/A, none of their money is getting syphoned off.

You can't cut or save sports if you don't know the true cost. If you are going look at baseball and decide whether to cut it, what is it really costing. Then you can go to the donors and say with confidence "baseball cost $x. Thumbs up or down? Up to you. You raise that, it stays. You don't, it goes." You can't do that with a bunch of phony, eyeball it, cross charges based more on politics or plain laziness than actual numbers.

My assumption would be that, at least at first, they are going to ask football to essentially pay for women's sports, since they really can't cut them, and the other men's sports are going to be determined by donations/revenue. Since she said we can't add sports, and we don't fulfill prong 1, that means at minimum men's roster spots are going to need to go, but I don't see how that can get us there. Even if it could, it doesn't make sense to me to fatally wound every program rather than just kill off a couple and keep the rest healthy.
OB:

Basically you are spot on. The main problem in terms of the financial relationship between IA and the campus is the way many things are charged. Out of state athletes are charged the full out-of-state tuition even though the fair cost of their education is less. Employee benefits are charged as a fixed percentage of salaries regardless of the actual cost. Because many IA salaries are very high (AD, most coaches), this grossly over-inflates the actual cost of these benefits (Wilcox's medical insurance doesn't cost 250,000 per year). Also for reasons unknown, IA is charged more for processing donations (9%) than other units on campus (5%). These are relatively easy fixes, although they don't improve the overall campus bottom line.

As for cutting sports, the problem comes down to WHICH ones. The low hanging fruit is probably men's gymnastics or cross country, but these are small programs and won't improve things much. The easiest would be to reduce rugby to a club sport, since it wouldn't affect their schedule or ability to compete for championships, etc., but you saw the **** storm that happened when that was tried before. Same with baseball (we would also become the only P12 school without a baseball team). Aquatics are obviously out--they just got a new state-of-the-art facility and win national championships as a matter of course. Track and field is 2nd only to football and basketball in terms of diversity and minority participation + not having a track team may negatively impact football recruiting (rb's and wr's like to run track). Golf and tennis are pretty well funded. That leaves soccer, but soccer is also a sport with a lot of minority participation. Not saying it can't be done, just that it's not as easy as some suggest.
Correction: Colorado does not have a baseball program.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

NVBear78 said:




Can someone explain how walk-on's for Football and other Men's Sports and Rugby are counted under Title IX?

I love the new Chancellor but did she say that numbers will have to be reduced in football? Is she talking about walk-ons or actual scholarship players? This would seem at odds with the necessity to make football more successful so as to drive revenues for all sports. Are there any schools which either limit their scholarship players or their walk-ons?


Any clarification would be helpful!
Title IX does NOT count scholarship players. It counts the TOTAL roster, which is defined as players suited up for the first game/match/meet of the season. Right now, football has approximately 40-50 or so walk-ons. Cutting that number by 15-20 wouldn't affect the team in the slightest.


If that is true, why offer scholarships in anything other than football and men's basketball?
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

UrsaMajor said:

NVBear78 said:




Can someone explain how walk-on's for Football and other Men's Sports and Rugby are counted under Title IX?

I love the new Chancellor but did she say that numbers will have to be reduced in football? Is she talking about walk-ons or actual scholarship players? This would seem at odds with the necessity to make football more successful so as to drive revenues for all sports. Are there any schools which either limit their scholarship players or their walk-ons?


Any clarification would be helpful!
Title IX does NOT count scholarship players. It counts the TOTAL roster, which is defined as players suited up for the first game/match/meet of the season. Right now, football has approximately 40-50 or so walk-ons. Cutting that number by 15-20 wouldn't affect the team in the slightest.


If that is true, why offer scholarships in anything other than football and men's basketball?


Because we wouldn't be remotely competitive in anything else and would obviously be in violation of TIX, as you could easily prove that we weren't providing equal opportunities for men and women.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do the 1% decline to state have Title IX standing?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

No scholarships would be reduced in football, only walk-on slots.
And I might add that Wilcox seems okay with this. He still has a sufficient number of walk on spaces to meet his needs for PWO's, and the administrative burden of dealing with extra players is eliminated. Sonny also was of the view there were just too many walk-ons to be optimal.
Husmo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NVBear78 said:




Can someone explain how walk-on's for Football and other Men's Sports and Rugby are counted under Title IX?

And I have never understood how and why Rugby numbers should even be counted since that is not a Varsity sport with scholarships? Rugby has a large number of participants-are they all counted or only in some special categories?

Any clarification would be helpful!
For Title IX accounting all student-athletes who are on the varsity (AD sponsored) intercollegiate team rosters (called squad lists) at the date of the first competition must be counted as participants. This is regardless of recruited/walk-on status, financial aid award, or whether or not an NCAA sponsored sport. For example, at Cal this means that men's crew and rugby count against the totals (sponsored by the AD) and women's rugby and men's lacrosse don't (sponsored by Rec Sports).

Under prong 1 compliance the proportionality to undergrad student body has to do with number of participants. The dollars for scholarships and other costs have to be proportional on average for women v. men.

Also, interesting to note that participants count once for each sport they compete in - a distance runner who competes in cross country, indoor track, and outdoor track counts as three participants.
Page 1 of 2
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.