<p>Good. 10char</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - NEW E*TRADE Baby - Lottery](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube)</p>
<p>Just wait until the last bit. It’s my reaction.</p>
<p>Pretty sad. No Cal baseball!? Pretty big loss when the other California Pac-10 schools can fund baseball. The gymnastics teams were successful and it seems like the kiss of death to Cal Rugby success…bad news for a Cal Bear.</p>
<p>A lot of people (including faculty) were griping about how much money the sports teams have been utilizing, so I’m not surprised this happened. They’re cutting back sports that don’t bring in much money through ticket sales and whatnot. </p>
<p>I don’t approve of the sports cutbacks, but they started cutting academic resources first; if they didn’t remove some sports teams, they would have taken away even more from our classes.</p>
<p>In any case, it really sucks that the state system is so poorly funded and everyone in the school, especially student-athletes, is suffering because of it.</p>
<p>Good.</p>
<p>…except Rugby. I was led to believe we were one of the best in the country at that one and unless it was a HUGE money sink, it makes little sense to eliminate it. But w/e.</p>
<p>It’s not eliminated. It just won’t receive as much funding. Cal Baseball on the other hand</p>
<p>Once the new Pac-12 tv deal happens, the athletic department will be much better off. College football and to a lesser extent, basketball do very well for the athletic department as a whole.</p>
<p>And Baseball should NOT have been cut.</p>
<p>Cal is tied for the most former students currently in MLB, proud tradition and 2 national titles. Absolute joke that they allowed it to come to this.</p>
<p>Rugby went from a varsity sport to the self-supporting club team.</p>
<p>According to The Chronicle of Higher education, this cuts the athletic subsidy from 13 million per year to 5 million per year. It’s a good start, but I’d like to see that number approach zero. The state should not have to subsidize any athletic team that can’t support itself.</p>
<p>I feel badly for the athletes that were recruited to play those five sports for Cal. These student-athletes most likely turned down offers at other schools to play for Cal and now the rug is being pulled out from under them. What a sad state of affairs. I hope the State of California can get its act together.</p>
<p>I hope the university reconsiders the elimination of these programs when a new Pac-12 TV deal is secured. </p>
<p>I don’t understand why the university made this decision at a time when new information (athletic revenue from Pac-12 and state funding through the budget process) could come to light and rescue these programs. Why didn’t Cal reach out more to alumni supporters to potentially save these programs?</p>
<p>You realize we haven’t won a title in the last 60 years…and where does everyone get the information that Cal has a lot of students go on to the pros. I only can find 10 names or so and Jeff Kent is the most famous of all…</p>
<p>And Cal baseball players are allowed to transfer to other schools, passing the deadline because of what happens. Also, i don’t think Pac12 is gonna help. We didn’t exactly add any big school teams</p>
<p>Even in good economic times, the opportunity cost of athletic program spending (excluding football and basketball which pay for themselves) is hard to justify.</p>
<p>Batman, the money in college sports comes from the tv deals. The pac-10 currently has a horrible tv deal and Larry Scott is changing that, the amount of money gained from the new deal will be substantial.</p>
<p>And Cal, next to LSU has the most current active MLB players. Cal is also among the top of current NFL players.</p>
<p>cavilier, football doesn’t just pay for itself, it pays for ALL of the other sports. Part of the problem is that Cal has largely neglected the football program, it’s obvious that that has now changed, but if it would have started to see how much money these programs can generate a while ago they wouldn’t be in this mess right now.</p>
<p>*See Texas.</p>
<p>It doesn’t make sense to cite football profits to justify the existence of other sports programs. Football profits justify Cal football. All other athletic programs require an 11.5 million dollar subsidy each year. </p>
<p>Cal neglected the football program? From 2008-2009, Cal spent 19.1 million on football. This dwarfs Stanford 13.5 million, and is just behind USC’s 21.4 million.</p>
<p>I should also correct something I said earlier. Basketball is not self-supporting, but instead requires an addition 1.2 million dollars each year.</p>
<p>All statistics cited are from the 2008-2009 academic year.</p>
<p>It’s funny how barely anyone cared about these sports before, but now that they’ve been cut everyones up in arms.</p>
<p>There simply hasn’t been enough demand for many of these sports. If enough people went to watch games regularly I’m sure they wouldn’t have made the decision as easily as they did.</p>
<p>^ Having a large and diverse sports offering, in my opinion, helps elevate the school. Cal was quite successful in these sports (especially men’s gymnastics) and there are very few schools that offer them. Regarding baseball, Cal is a Pac-10 school, and to cut a core conference sport program seems misguided. Cal baseball was starting to turn around. I bet attendance will be high during this last season. </p>
<p>I wish Cal was able to keep all these teams and had the funding to add more (while keeping the core mission of education and research)…unfortunately this budget crisis has caused a lot of pain for Cal and I hope we can recover quickly.</p>
<p>Caviler,</p>
<p>I agree, Cal football justifies Cal’s football program; however, there is this thing called Title IX. Every school has to adhere to this standard and Cal’s income from football helps to pay for a lot of these other teams.</p>
<p>Also, I said that Cal has largely ignored it’s football program, but there is great evidence that that is absolutely changing. (I’m talking from the 60’s to the 90’s here, this last decade Cal has made huge strides in this department, the facilities and new retrofit of the stadium are evidence of this).</p>
<p>If you want to see what a successful university looks like in terms of marketing, look at the University of Texas, or in fact, this list in general.</p>
<p>BCS Football Programs Net Revenue
Source: U.S. Department of Education’s Equity in Athletics report for the 2008-09 school year
Rank University Net Revenue Conference
1 Texas $65.02 Big 12
2 Georgia $45.38 SEC
3 Florida $43.29 SEC
4 Penn State $42.63 Big Ten
5 LSU $39.12 SEC
6 Notre Dame $38.18 Independent
7 Alabama $38.16 SEC
8 Nebraska $37.29 Big 12
9 South Carolina $37.23 SEC
10 Ohio State $35.89 Big Ten
11 Michigan $34.21 Big Ten
12 Auburn $29.81 SEC
13 Michigan State $27.64 Big Ten
14 Texas A&M $22.29 Big 12
15 Oklahoma $21.84 Big 12
16 Arkansas $20.33 SEC
17 Tennessee $19.84 SEC
18 Oregon State $18.35 Pac-10
19 Wisconsin $17.29 Big Ten
20 Clemson $16.36 ACC
21 Minnesota $16.34 Big Ten
22 Washington $15.64 Pac-10
23 Illinois $15.22 Big Ten
24 Colorado $14.78 Big 12
25 Oklahoma State $14.04 Big 12
26 USC $13.83 Pac-10
27 Boston College $13.26 ACC
28 West Virginia $13.05 Big East
29 Kentucky $12.90 SEC
30 Arizona State $12.64 Pac-10
31 Iowa $11.99 Big Ten
32 N.C. State $10.77 ACC
33 Texas Tech $9.62 Big 12
34 Virginia Tech $9.47 ACC
35 Ole Miss $9.17 SEC
36 Indiana $8.99 Big Ten
37 Oregon $8.92 Pac-10
38 North Carolina $8.80 ACC
39 California $8.62 Pac-10
40 Missouri $8.46 Big 12</p>
<p>The fact that we are 39th is a joke, and is not all Cal’s fault, it was the pac-10 conferences fault. Yes, that’s right, Texas’s football program brings in roughly 70m a year, and we bring in about 9, think a successful program would help our financial crisis right now? Think even having a program as half as successful as the Longhorns would be able to easily fund the rest of our athletic program?</p>