<p>UT-Austin and Florida athletic programs generate so much profit, they donate it back to the school. Truly an enviable place to be, especially in these times.</p>
<p>The thought does occur that the inputs required to reach the levels of those schools might be somewhat prohibitory.</p>
<p>I’m not saying this with any real backing - I didn’t care enough to review most of the list - but the point stands.</p>
<p>I think people on the west coast don’t care as much about football as people elsewhere in the country. Concluding that the difference in profit is due to the PAC 10 or whatever is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree with cavilier. Mid-US especially = football galore (because there’s not much there, especially in small towns)</p>
<p>18 Oregon State $18.35 Pac-10
22 Washington $15.64 Pac-10</p>
<p>All Cal teams suck for the past 50+ years anyway,
only occasionally national-competitive before WW2,
despite the still surprising considerable export to pros,
if not because of the academic alumni still supporting
the perennial underachieving teams vs Stanford, USC, UCLA in CA.
(or just look at other true top sports schools AND also true
top academic as Stanford, Michigan, or Duke as contrast)</p>
<p>UC’s sport emphasis and resources pretty much
always been on UCLA one and only.</p>
<p>Cal 50? years still never went to Rose Bowl?
60? years won only 1 Pac10 hoops champ(not even
with Jason kidd) ?
How many NCAAs in any sport Cal actually
won after WW2?</p>
<p>With CA state bankrupt, and UC bankrupt, might as well cut as much sports
so students still have classes to go to without hiking another 50% tuition/yr.</p>
<p>^ Personally, I think Cal’s success in the bigger sports dropped in the 60s and 70s due to liberalization on campus and lack of support from the administration. </p>
<p>It has had more success in other sports.
Cal started turning around athletic success in the 2000s - I hope the momentum and support continue despite the economic crisis. </p>
<p>As an alum, sports help connect us to the campus…and sports provide diversity on campus. It’s an important part of tradition and the college experience. Sure, we need to focus our priorities on core mission of education and research, but I believe athletics should still be a significant priority for the best public university.</p>
<p>Before WW2, Berkeley’s like 2nd only to Harvard in the country overall?
Let’s just say Cal dropped in academic and sports, and just about everything else
in 60s 70s, esp. deep contrast with Stanford’s sudden stellar-rise at the same time
to become forever “The University of 2nd Choice to Stanford” at least on undergrad.</p>
<p>Perhaps only Ivys don’t need any real sport teams to connect
alumni support and $revenue and $donation.</p>
<p>LOL
My friend said this recently, “What? Cal (actually, finally) won a hoops Pac-10 title?
Go bears” And he went to Cal CS undergrad, and Stanford CS grad.
But then I don’t think Berkeley’s alumni network and
$donation(if any…) ever has to do with the mediocre sports teams.</p>
<p>Yeah, I saw Oregon State and Washington. They don’t really contradict my assertion since they are nearly halfway down the list. Only 5 universities on the list are on the west coast, and 4 of them are on the second half of the list. This should suggest something since the west coast has far greater population density than the Midwest and probably more universities to boot.</p>
<p>Sports are good for student life, but why does it have to be intercollegiate sports? They are expensive and only a small number of students participate in them.</p>
<p>Attention all girl (former) lacrosse players: Please return your university-subsidized mopeds as soon as possible.</p>
<p>Caviler, it’s the tv contract, pure and simple. I don’t really have the time to explain it at the moment, but within a few years, after the new contracts are in place, you will see a sharp rise in the revenue gained for all Pac-12 teams, it’s that simple.</p>
<p>And OSU and UW both contradict your statement because that isn’t the entire list, the entire list is roughly 120 teams long, OSU is 18th in the country…in Corvalis.</p>
<p>Red devil,</p>
<p>Cal has an incredibly strong athletic program and is not only one of only a handful of programs to rank in the top 10 of the Director’s Cup the last 5 years, but it also one of the few programs to have national championships in the big 3, (Football, Basketball, Baseball).</p>
<p>Cal is also 4th in the Pac-10 for total NCAA championships and Cal athletes represent in the Olympics at a tremendous rate.</p>
<p>The new facilities, coaching staff and stadium renovation will bring Cal football to a new level, the future looks very bright. Cal has also been the 2nd most winningest program in the Pac-10 since Tedford’s arrival (2002).</p>
<p>double superlative. we must be very good. haha</p>
<p>Fair enough but I’d say “decently”, and not “incredibly” and all before 60s –>
Latest
NCAA football champ 1937
NCAA baseball champ 1957
NCAA hoops champ 1959
before dropping in 60s 70s all the way with the Vietnam War hippies</p>
<p>Cal’s a distant 4th in Pac10 NCAA champs, though
could argue comparing with national powers UCLA, Stanford and USC
is a bit unfair.</p>
<p>Momentum Tedford/Montgomery in later 2000’s better than
dismal “Holmoe/Braun” 90s-2000s,
but with the current UC budget problems now not looking bright.<br>
That’s why baseball’s gone.</p>
<p>Football team don’t look any promising this year so far, and won’t
be as underdog lucky this year in the Big Game as last year, as Bay
Area power balance has turned back to Palo Alto.</p>
<p>Why’s UCLA not have to cut sport teams under same UC budget crisis?</p>