Photo by Berkely Lab

One on One With Chancellor Christ

March 29, 2018
7,437

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion from...

One on One With Chancellor Christ

71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I disagree with the notion that a Title IX has Cal "over a barrel". IMO, Title IX is an example of Federal legislation at its finest. The incredible expansion of athletic opportunities (among other things) for women over the last 40+ years is a direct result of Title IX. In fact, it is not Title IX that has Cal over a barrel. It is the extraordinarily poor leadership that has been demonstrated by Cal's administrators that has the AD over a barrel.

UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

I disagree with the notion that a Title IX has Cal "over a barrel". IMO, Title IX is an example of Federal legislation at its finest. The incredible expansion of athletic opportunities (among other things) for women over the last 40+ years is a direct result of Title IX. In fact, it is not Title IX that has Cal over a barrel. It is the extraordinarily poor leadership that has been demonstrated by Cal's administrators that has the AD over a barrel.


Absolutely correct. Cal chose the lazy way out a number of years ago by opting for Prong 3, which has come back to bite them in the ass. However, the problem with Title IX, is the way it was implemented. Prong 1 makes no allowances for football, which is by far the largest sport in terms of participants and the financial engine that runs athletic departments. The result is that in many instances Title IX has led schools to radically cut sports for both men and women to achieve "parity." Obviously, Title IX was not put into place in order to reduce opportunity for men; it was put there to increase opportunity for women.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

71Bear said:

I disagree with the notion that a Title IX has Cal "over a barrel". IMO, Title IX is an example of Federal legislation at its finest. The incredible expansion of athletic opportunities (among other things) for women over the last 40+ years is a direct result of Title IX. In fact, it is not Title IX that has Cal over a barrel. It is the extraordinarily poor leadership that has been demonstrated by Cal's administrators that has the AD over a barrel.


Absolutely correct. Cal chose the lazy way out a number of years ago by opting for Prong 3, which has come back to bite them in the ass. However, the problem with Title IX, is the way it was implemented. Prong 1 makes no allowances for football, which is by far the largest sport in terms of participants and the financial engine that runs athletic departments. The result is that in many instances Title IX has led schools to radically cut sports for both men and women to achieve "parity." Obviously, Title IX was not put into place in order to reduce opportunity for men; it was put there to increase opportunity for women.
By counting football, the opportunities for women have been relatively expanded. That is a good thing. Do you think programs across the country would have the same number of programs for women if football were not counted? Of course not, and that is why, in my opinion, football should be counted.
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
There are no women's sports even remotely comparable in scholarship needs and numbers to football, nor are there any women's sports that turn a penny of profit.

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm going to leave the Title 9 arguments to others.

Thanks for an informative article and kudos on getting access to the Chancellor. She really seems to understand the benefits of both outreach and transparency.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

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

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
Where did I state that there is a women's sport that provides 85 scholarships?

Why should women be second class citizens? I am continually amazed by comments made by people regarding the rights of women. The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Title IX reinforces that guarantee in academic settings. Bottom line - women should receive the same number of scholarships as men.

IMO, suggesting that profit should be a reason for determining whether an individual has value is incredibly shallow. Also, suggesting that Title IX is "onerous" belittles the status of women...

MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
71Bear said:

MoragaBear said:

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

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
Where did I state that there is a women's sport that provides 85 scholarships?

Why should women be second class citizens? I am continually amazed by comments made by people regarding the rights of women. The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Title IX reinforces that guarantee in academic settings. Bottom line - women should receive the same number of scholarships as men.

IMO, suggesting that Title IX is "onerous" belittles the status of women...


Where did I say you said there was a comparable women's sport?

Title IX would be just fine if football didn't throw numbers so out of balance but the fact is, it does. In a big way. That's what makes it onerous for athletic departments to try and balance out roster and scholarship numbers.

Have no idea why you're trying to turn this into some sexist disagreement. I and the dominant majority have no problem with Title IX in principal.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

71Bear said:

MoragaBear said:

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

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
Where did I state that there is a women's sport that provides 85 scholarships?

Why should women be second class citizens? I am continually amazed by comments made by people regarding the rights of women. The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Title IX reinforces that guarantee in academic settings. Bottom line - women should receive the same number of scholarships as men.

IMO, suggesting that Title IX is "onerous" belittles the status of women...


Where did I say you said there was a comparable women's sport?

Title IX would be just fine if football didn't throw numbers so out of balance but the fact is, it does. In a big way. That's what makes it onerous for athletic departments to try and balance out roster and scholarship numbers.

Have no idea why you're trying to turn this into some sexist disagreement. I and the dominant majority have no problem with Title IX in principal.
Perhaps your suggestion that a 50% exemption should apply to football reminded me of language in the original US Constitution that slaves should count as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of determining population. This language was eliminated upon passage of the 13th amendment.

In my opinion, anyone who suggests that women should count for 50% rather than 100% is wrong. There is no getting around the fact that anyone who argues against the concepts of Title IX is a sexist no matter how they may cloak their intent.

By the way, the dominant majority can be wrong. That is why one vote in a jury room of twelve people can stop a potential injustice. I guess you never saw "Twelve Angry Men".
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

MoragaBear said:

71Bear said:

MoragaBear said:

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

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
Where did I state that there is a women's sport that provides 85 scholarships?

Why should women be second class citizens? I am continually amazed by comments made by people regarding the rights of women. The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Title IX reinforces that guarantee in academic settings. Bottom line - women should receive the same number of scholarships as men.

IMO, suggesting that Title IX is "onerous" belittles the status of women...


Where did I say you said there was a comparable women's sport?

Title IX would be just fine if football didn't throw numbers so out of balance but the fact is, it does. In a big way. That's what makes it onerous for athletic departments to try and balance out roster and scholarship numbers.

Have no idea why you're trying to turn this into some sexist disagreement. I and the dominant majority have no problem with Title IX in principal.
Perhaps your suggestion that a 50% exemption should apply to football reminded me of language in the original US Constitution that slaves should count as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of determining population. This language was eliminated upon passage of the 13th amendment.

In my opinion, anyone who suggests that women should count for 50% rather than 100% is wrong. There is no getting around the fact that anyone who argues against the concepts of Title IX is a sexist no matter how they may cloak their intent.

By the way, the dominant majority can be wrong. That is why one vote in a jury room of twelve people can stop a potential injustice. I guess you never saw "Twelve Angry Men".

If I understand Moraga's proposal, it would be the men's football scholarships that would count 50%, so to say that it proposes "women should count 50% rather than 100%" is, I think, an inaccuracy that only serves to fan the flames.

Wait, are there any flames here?
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
How in the world did my suggestion that 50% of football's roster spots be exempted turn into something racist and sexist now?

I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion because it's making no sense whatsoever at this point.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

71Bear said:

MoragaBear said:

71Bear said:

MoragaBear said:

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

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
Where did I state that there is a women's sport that provides 85 scholarships?

Why should women be second class citizens? I am continually amazed by comments made by people regarding the rights of women. The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Title IX reinforces that guarantee in academic settings. Bottom line - women should receive the same number of scholarships as men.

IMO, suggesting that Title IX is "onerous" belittles the status of women...


Where did I say you said there was a comparable women's sport?

Title IX would be just fine if football didn't throw numbers so out of balance but the fact is, it does. In a big way. That's what makes it onerous for athletic departments to try and balance out roster and scholarship numbers.

Have no idea why you're trying to turn this into some sexist disagreement. I and the dominant majority have no problem with Title IX in principal.
Perhaps your suggestion that a 50% exemption should apply to football reminded me of language in the original US Constitution that slaves should count as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of determining population. This language was eliminated upon passage of the 13th amendment.

In my opinion, anyone who suggests that women should count for 50% rather than 100% is wrong. There is no getting around the fact that anyone who argues against the concepts of Title IX is a sexist no matter how they may cloak their intent.

By the way, the dominant majority can be wrong. That is why one vote in a jury room of twelve people can stop a potential injustice. I guess you never saw "Twelve Angry Men".

If I understand Moraga's proposal, it would be the men's football scholarships that would count 50%, so to say that it proposes "women should count 50% rather than 100%" is, I think, an inaccuracy that only serves to fan the flames.

Wait, are there any flames here?
To the contrary, suggesting that 85 men should receive full scholarships but only have it count as 42.5 for the purposes of Title IX tells me that women would only receive one-half of what men get or putting it another way, that women are only valued at 50% of men.

No flames, just pointing out that language counts and to suggest that Title IX has Cal "over a barrel" sends a terrible message. It is sad to see a great university that encourages diversity, equality and critical thinking is represented at a fan site by shortsighted commentary.
annarborbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Title IX is admirable and has great value. But it did leave out the real world problem of how to pay for it all if a university cannot afford to subsidize its athletic program. That is a difficult issue that has to be addressed realistically over time. Donors are critically important to the overall formula at this point.
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

How in the world did my suggestion that 50% of football's roster spots be exempted turn into something racist and sexist now?

I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion because it's making no sense whatsoever at this point.
You forgot to create your safe space MB. You must now pay the price!!!
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

71Bear said:

I disagree with the notion that a Title IX has Cal "over a barrel". IMO, Title IX is an example of Federal legislation at its finest. The incredible expansion of athletic opportunities (among other things) for women over the last 40+ years is a direct result of Title IX. In fact, it is not Title IX that has Cal over a barrel. It is the extraordinarily poor leadership that has been demonstrated by Cal's administrators that has the AD over a barrel.


Absolutely correct. Cal chose the lazy way out a number of years ago by opting for Prong 3, which has come back to bite them in the ass. However, the problem with Title IX, is the way it was implemented. Prong 1 makes no allowances for football, which is by far the largest sport in terms of participants and the financial engine that runs athletic departments.


That rationale could only work at schools that make a ton of profit from football.

Most schools outside the major conferences, and some in the major conferences, lose money on football; some lose more money on football than all other sports combined.
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
BearSD said:

UrsaMajor said:

71Bear said:

I disagree with the notion that a Title IX has Cal "over a barrel". IMO, Title IX is an example of Federal legislation at its finest. The incredible expansion of athletic opportunities (among other things) for women over the last 40+ years is a direct result of Title IX. In fact, it is not Title IX that has Cal over a barrel. It is the extraordinarily poor leadership that has been demonstrated by Cal's administrators that has the AD over a barrel.


Absolutely correct. Cal chose the lazy way out a number of years ago by opting for Prong 3, which has come back to bite them in the ass. However, the problem with Title IX, is the way it was implemented. Prong 1 makes no allowances for football, which is by far the largest sport in terms of participants and the financial engine that runs athletic departments.


That rationale could only work at schools that make a ton of profit from football.

Most schools outside the major conferences, and some in the major conferences, lose money on football; some lose more money on football than all other sports combined.
Even at a program like Cal, Cal Athletics spent $35,245,048 on men's teams and received $43,423,256 in revenue.
NVBear78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

MoragaBear said:

71Bear said:

MoragaBear said:

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

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
Where did I state that there is a women's sport that provides 85 scholarships?

Why should women be second class citizens? I am continually amazed by comments made by people regarding the rights of women. The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Title IX reinforces that guarantee in academic settings. Bottom line - women should receive the same number of scholarships as men.

IMO, suggesting that Title IX is "onerous" belittles the status of women...


Where did I say you said there was a comparable women's sport?

Title IX would be just fine if football didn't throw numbers so out of balance but the fact is, it does. In a big way. That's what makes it onerous for athletic departments to try and balance out roster and scholarship numbers.

Have no idea why you're trying to turn this into some sexist disagreement. I and the dominant majority have no problem with Title IX in principal.
Perhaps your suggestion that a 50% exemption should apply to football reminded me of language in the original US Constitution that slaves should count as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of determining population. This language was eliminated upon passage of the 13th amendment.

In my opinion, anyone who suggests that women should count for 50% rather than 100% is wrong. There is no getting around the fact that anyone who argues against the concepts of Title IX is a sexist no matter how they may cloak their intent.

By the way, the dominant majority can be wrong. That is why one vote in a jury room of twelve people can stop a potential injustice. I guess you never saw "Twelve Angry Men".




On the contrary it is time to revisit Title IX and make adjustments such as suggested by Moraga. Tell me again why Football should subsidize all other college sports and specifically women's sports?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NVBear78 said:

71Bear said:

MoragaBear said:

71Bear said:

MoragaBear said:

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

At a minimum, there should've been at least a 50% exemption for football to not make Title IX onerous for most universities.
Where did I state that there is a women's sport that provides 85 scholarships?

Why should women be second class citizens? I am continually amazed by comments made by people regarding the rights of women. The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Title IX reinforces that guarantee in academic settings. Bottom line - women should receive the same number of scholarships as men.

IMO, suggesting that Title IX is "onerous" belittles the status of women...


Where did I say you said there was a comparable women's sport?

Title IX would be just fine if football didn't throw numbers so out of balance but the fact is, it does. In a big way. That's what makes it onerous for athletic departments to try and balance out roster and scholarship numbers.

Have no idea why you're trying to turn this into some sexist disagreement. I and the dominant majority have no problem with Title IX in principal.
Perhaps your suggestion that a 50% exemption should apply to football reminded me of language in the original US Constitution that slaves should count as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of determining population. This language was eliminated upon passage of the 13th amendment.

In my opinion, anyone who suggests that women should count for 50% rather than 100% is wrong. There is no getting around the fact that anyone who argues against the concepts of Title IX is a sexist no matter how they may cloak their intent.

By the way, the dominant majority can be wrong. That is why one vote in a jury room of twelve people can stop a potential injustice. I guess you never saw "Twelve Angry Men".




On the contrary it is time to revisit Title IX and make adjustments such as suggested by Moraga. Tell me again why Football should subsidize all other college sports and specifically women's sports?
If you achieve prong 1 you can force coaches of women's and men's teams to fundraise, because both gender's sports could be on the chopping block. That said, Furd women's sports do a pretty good job at raising money and some women's sports are close to break even. It is one thing to achieve justice, it is another not to require initiative and effort on the fundraising side for both genders.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
annarborbear said:

Title IX is admirable and has great value. But it did leave out the real world problem of how to pay for it all if a university cannot afford to subsidize its athletic program. That is a difficult issue that has to be addressed realistically over time. Donors are critically important to the overall formula at this point.
There's paying for it and there's what is right. Title IX is the right thing to do. Sometimes in society you have to pay for stuff you don't like or agree with. I agree with Title IX. No excuses: find a fair and equitable solution to what's on the table (Title IX and FB)...or BLOW UP competitive IA and start over. Because if you want fairness those are the options. Deal with it or blow it all up and start over.

I see the value of athletics, played my whole life, great benefits...but this is education. There's massive issues in just paying for the education part right now. 1,200% increase in tuition over the past 30 years. As much as I love sport, maybe it should not be part of serious higher education...or kill the revenue sports. It's a joke that it's a BILLION dollar industry run on AMATEUR talent? That's just baloney.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The purpose of Title IX is to ensure equal opportunity for women (technically for both genders, but in reality we mean women as the underrepresented gender). Because of the fact that football is so much larger than any other sport, many universities are faced with the choice of reducing opportunities for men in order to meet Prong 1. This does nothing for women on campus. Or to put it differently, which is better: 500 men and 400 women participating or 300 men and 300 women? In a sense, Prong 3 is the most equitable--not dealing solely with numbers, but with opportunity. The problem with Prong 3, however, is that it is prohibitively expensive (if Cal were to stay on Prong 3 we would need to build a stable for an equestrian team and a bowling alley).

We do a lot of things that aren't "fair and equitable" in order to be able to fund programs. The fair and equitable allocation of seats at Haas or CMS would be some kind of lottery, but instead, we reserve the best seats for those who pay more. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but if you eliminate football, you can easily have gender parity--but probably only 1 or 2 sports...
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

BearSD said:

UrsaMajor said:

71Bear said:

I disagree with the notion that a Title IX has Cal "over a barrel". IMO, Title IX is an example of Federal legislation at its finest. The incredible expansion of athletic opportunities (among other things) for women over the last 40+ years is a direct result of Title IX. In fact, it is not Title IX that has Cal over a barrel. It is the extraordinarily poor leadership that has been demonstrated by Cal's administrators that has the AD over a barrel.


Absolutely correct. Cal chose the lazy way out a number of years ago by opting for Prong 3, which has come back to bite them in the ass. However, the problem with Title IX, is the way it was implemented. Prong 1 makes no allowances for football, which is by far the largest sport in terms of participants and the financial engine that runs athletic departments.


That rationale could only work at schools that make a ton of profit from football.

Most schools outside the major conferences, and some in the major conferences, lose money on football; some lose more money on football than all other sports combined.
Even at a program like Cal, Cal Athletics spent $35,245,048 on men's teams and received $43,423,256 in revenue.


Cal is still on the profit side of that line. What about (for example) SJSU or SDSU?
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This brings up an interesting side question. In the olden days some of the power schools would stockpile players that they knew they never intended to use, except in the most unlikely situations (injuries, dropouts). Their rational was to keep those players from other schools where, if they misread their potential, it could come back to bite them.

Now, if we reduce our number of walk ons, I would imagine the Alabamas, U$Cs, and Notre Dames would have to do the same. Would this then avail us of some quality players in recruiting we might not otherwise "close on"?
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
This is a Cal issue. There's no reason why any other school would reduce their rosters unless they're in the same Title IX boat.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66 said:

This brings up an interesting side question. In the olden days some of the power schools would stockpile players that they knew they never intended to use, except in the most unlikely situations (injuries, dropouts). Their rational was to keep those players from other schools where, if they misread their potential, it could come back to bite them.

Now, if we reduce our number of walk ons, I would imagine the Alabamas, U$Cs, and Notre Dames would have to do the same. Would this then avail us of some quality players in recruiting we might not otherwise "close on"?
SC and Notre Dame offer 20 sports program and Alabama offers 16. This is the issue - Cal has far too many sports programs. By cutting out a bunch, Cal could continue to offer as many football walk-ons as they do now. The emphasis should be on football, men's basketball and as many women's sports as necessary to meet Title IX requirements. Everything else is fluff and should be under the microscope for potential cutting....
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

OdontoBear66 said:

This brings up an interesting side question. In the olden days some of the power schools would stockpile players that they knew they never intended to use, except in the most unlikely situations (injuries, dropouts). Their rational was to keep those players from other schools where, if they misread their potential, it could come back to bite them.

Now, if we reduce our number of walk ons, I would imagine the Alabamas, U$Cs, and Notre Dames would have to do the same. Would this then avail us of some quality players in recruiting we might not otherwise "close on"?
SC and Notre Dame offer 20 sports program and Alabama offers 16. This is the issue - Cal has far too many sports programs. By cutting out a bunch, Cal could continue to offer as many football walk-ons as they do now. The emphasis should be on football, men's basketball and as many women's sports as necessary to meet Title IX requirements. Everything else is fluff and should be under the microscope for potential cutting....
Unfortunately, as we all know, once you institute something it is very difficult to cut back. The idea of too many sports is great for more people being able to participate, but there should be some standard of affordability if you do so.
Goobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


I talked to kids on the football team. You need al lot of walk-ons for scout team. You do not want 2's to play on the scout team to get hurt. There cannot be that many cuts...
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is my concern also I don't think Cal football has that type of slack to play around with... injuries happen other stuff happens
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UCLA is a good comparison, so let's look at which sports are varsity at each school.

Cal varsity sports that are not varsity at UCLA:
-- Men's gymnastics, men's rowing, men's rugby, men's swimming & diving
-- Women's field hockey, women's lacrosse

UCLA varsity sports that are not varsity at Cal:
-- Men's volleyball

Cal isn't going to drop men's rugby or swimming & diving.

So here are some guesses:

If any varsity sports are going to be dropped to club level, it will likely be men's gymnastics and men's rowing. But that's probably not enough by itself to get Cal into "prong 1" compliance.

The number of walk-ons will have to be capped for football and baseball -- it's just a matter of politicking between those program's coaches and the Cal administration to determine the cap number for each. I don't know if it's possible to encourage more walk-ons for women's sports, perhaps by finding non-athletic financial aid for women athletes who are interested in walking on in their sport, but it's worth looking into.

And, as part of satisfying Title IX prong 1, Cal will probably have to hold Jack Clark to his promise to have his rugby program's supporters fully fund a varsity women's rugby team.





UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

UCLA is a good comparison, so let's look at which sports are varsity at each school.

Cal varsity sports that are not varsity at UCLA:
-- Men's gymnastics, men's rowing, men's rugby, men's swimming & diving
-- Women's field hockey, women's lacrosse

UCLA varsity sports that are not varsity at Cal:
-- Men's volleyball

Cal isn't going to drop men's rugby or swimming & diving.

So here are some guesses:

If any varsity sports are going to be dropped to club level, it will likely be men's gymnastics and men's rowing. But that's probably not enough by itself to get Cal into "prong 1" compliance.

The number of walk-ons will have to be capped for football and baseball -- it's just a matter of politicking between those program's coaches and the Cal administration to determine the cap number for each. I don't know if it's possible to encourage more walk-ons for women's sports, perhaps by finding non-athletic financial aid for women athletes who are interested in walking on in their sport, but it's worth looking into.

And, as part of satisfying Title IX prong 1, Cal will probably have to hold Jack Clark to his promise to have his rugby program's supporters fully fund a varsity women's rugby team.






We'll never drop rowing to a club level. First of all, it is one of the most successful programs on campus (national championships); it is also one of the most well-funded. Sure, we can drop gymnastics, but that's a pretty small program. As for roster contraction. If the football coach says that he doesn't need as many walk-ons as there are, I'm inclined to trust that over some random poster on the internet.

Suggesting that any sport but football and basketball is "fluff" is a serious insult to the 400 or so male athletes who wear the Blue and Gold. I suggest the poster who said that walk up to one of our shot putters or water polo players and say, "Hey, dude, you're just fluff!"
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

BearSD said:

UCLA is a good comparison, so let's look at which sports are varsity at each school.

Cal varsity sports that are not varsity at UCLA:
-- Men's gymnastics, men's rowing, men's rugby, men's swimming & diving
-- Women's field hockey, women's lacrosse

UCLA varsity sports that are not varsity at Cal:
-- Men's volleyball

Cal isn't going to drop men's rugby or swimming & diving.

So here are some guesses:

If any varsity sports are going to be dropped to club level, it will likely be men's gymnastics and men's rowing. But that's probably not enough by itself to get Cal into "prong 1" compliance.

The number of walk-ons will have to be capped for football and baseball -- it's just a matter of politicking between those program's coaches and the Cal administration to determine the cap number for each. I don't know if it's possible to encourage more walk-ons for women's sports, perhaps by finding non-athletic financial aid for women athletes who are interested in walking on in their sport, but it's worth looking into.

And, as part of satisfying Title IX prong 1, Cal will probably have to hold Jack Clark to his promise to have his rugby program's supporters fully fund a varsity women's rugby team.






We'll never drop rowing to a club level. First of all, it is one of the most successful programs on campus (national championships); it is also one of the most well-funded. Sure, we can drop gymnastics, but that's a pretty small program. As for roster contraction. If the football coach says that he doesn't need as many walk-ons as there are, I'm inclined to trust that over some random poster on the internet.

Suggesting that any sport but football and basketball is "fluff" is a serious insult to the 400 or so male athletes who wear the Blue and Gold. I suggest the poster who said that walk up to one of our shot putters or water polo players and say, "Hey, dude, you're just fluff!"
I would be happy to be the guy who announces all the program cuts once a decision has been made. I have considerable experience delivering bad news to staff members. Of course, I would also expect a handsome fee for my consulting services.

Hard decisions need to be made. Cal has lived beyond its means for far too long. Everyone knows it. The athletes aren't stupid. They know their programs are being scrutinized. IMO, it is best to just rip the band aid off and begin the process of healing as soon as possible.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have said this before: other than football and basketball (men's and women's) or any sport that is fully funded, all scholarships should be for the amount of in-state tuition only. If the result is all of our field hockey players come from California, that would not be a horrible result.

Maybe we could add some women's JV teams?
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One on One With Chancellor Christ

I dunked on here time after time, but she kicked my ass in six straight games of Horse.
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So we need to look at men's sports to drop. The first thing that comes to mind is that there is tons of interest in swimming & diving by attendance at Spieker for meets. There is plenty of alum rowers and ruggers in financial support of their respective programs. The others need to assess with a long term viable plan how they are to survive and what the effective cost is. Then those in power need to assess return on investment in these programs. In other words, is baseball support short term or long term such that we need not worry. To me men's T&F should be toast, and I know a lot of reasons for keeping it but do not see it cost effective in any way. Keep women's T&F if needed for Title IX (so I am not so much against T&F but don't see a way to keep mens under the current problems). Men's tennis and golf----alums step up or gone. Men's soccer, roster reductions.

In other words, every men's sport goes under the microscope. We don't keep them for passion or diversity reasons. We look at all for financials. Why? Because that is where we are. The problem was developed when we decided on a big umbrella of sports. The costs have come to haunt us, and then Title IX has forced the issue.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

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

None of those are going. Arguably those three are the most successful athletic programs at Cal...and you don't axe where you excel.
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:


Quote:

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

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

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