<p>In a cost-saving move, the University of California-Berkeley is eliminating baseball, men's and women's gymnastics, and lacrosse, and demoting rugby to a new "varsity club" status.</p>
<p>I expect we'll see more of this. College and university budgets are tight, and most athletic departments lose money. The quickest fix is to terminate non-revenue and low-revenue sports, or to downgrade full-fledged varsity programs to club status (though it's not clear what Cal's new "varsity club" status means).</p>
<p>Cal's moves are expected to save $4 million a year, about a third of the annual $12 million gap between athletic department revenues and expenditures. That deficit is currently filled by student fees and subsidies from the Chancellor's discretionary fund. More to follow?</p>
<p>I’m ****ed. Stupid Title IX. The money ain’t the issue…Donors would have opened their wallets if historic Cal baseball was known to be on the chopping block. Pac-10 schools are expecting increased revenue from new TV contracts with expanded Pac-12.</p>
<p>The only California Pac-10 school without a baseball team?!</p>
<p>Cal men’s and women’s gymnastics were highly successful. Stanford men’s gymnastics will not have a west coast rival.</p>
<p>Hard to see how dropping baseball (38 M), men’s & women’s gymnastics (19 M, 15 W), and women’s lacrosse (30 W) does very much to address the M-W proportionality issue. That adds up to 57 M and 45 W they’re cutting. They’d get more bang for the buck in that direction by just dropping baseball and leaving gymnastics and lacrosse alone. So I’ve got to think it WAS a financial issue.</p>
<p>The biggest reduction in male athletes by far comes in rugby (61 M). But that has kind of a phony ring to it. They say they’re demoting rugby from a “varsity” sport to a brand new status, “varsity club.” What the heck? Everyone, including Berkeley, has had two levels of intercollegiate sports: varsity sports and club sports. Calling it “varsity club” sounds like they’re trying to have it both ways, so they can tell the NCAA it’s not a “varsity” sport and therefore shouldn’t count in the varsity Title IX calculation, while telling athletes that it’s “sort of” a varsity sport—see, we call it a “varsity club” sport which means it’s more than just a regular club sport and more like . . . well, more like a varsity sport. This sounds like total BS to me.</p>
<p>^ Cal Rugby is the only varsity rugby team in the entire NCAA…I believe. It’s worked out well. Cal Rugby is a dynasty and has tremendous support from Cal alumni. Cal wanted to be very careful with handling such a successful program. Title IX though is the reason Cal Rugby lost funding support. </p>
<p>Eliminating women’s gymnastics and lacrosse meant Cal couldn’t comply with Title IX by the previous “prong” of “fully and effectively” accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex…therefore, it switched to the proportional “throng” and had to cut male athletes.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why Cal made this decision at this time…my guess is it was pressure from the academic faculty in the face of budget cuts. A new Pac-12 TV deal might have changed the outcome, but it’s a little late for many Cal student athletes.</p>