[PalmTree]

...is Losing all his Hair....and shirt, apparently, with a $140M operating deficit last year.  It seems unlikely support from the the system will be sufficient to bail them out so Cal administration is looking at layoffs and possible cuts to athletics to help stabilize their finances.  In re the latter, as the article points out, the last big athletics cut attempted was the baseball team, which alums rallied to save by fundraising sufficient $. 

http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/...819196.php

[PalmTree]

...is Losing all his Hair....and shirt, apparently, with a $140M operating deficit last year.  It seems unlikely support from the the system will be sufficient to bail them out so Cal administration is looking at layoffs and possible cuts to athletics to help stabilize their finances.  In re the latter, as the article points out, the last big athletics cut attempted was the baseball team, which alums rallied to save by fundraising sufficient $. 

http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/...819196.php

[Redrum]

UC Berkeley is projecting a deficit of $150 million this fiscal year — about 6 percent of its operating budget of $2.5 billion. The campus overspent by $109 million last year and by $12 million in the 2013-14 fiscal year, according to campus officials. In previous years, despite the economic recession, the campus enjoyed surpluses.

The trend line tells the truth. No matter how they structured the stadium financing, it's hitting hard now and could hit harder in the future scheduled re-fi. Sucking chest wound.

[Redrum]

UC Berkeley is projecting a deficit of $150 million this fiscal year — about 6 percent of its operating budget of $2.5 billion. The campus overspent by $109 million last year and by $12 million in the 2013-14 fiscal year, according to campus officials. In previous years, despite the economic recession, the campus enjoyed surpluses.

The trend line tells the truth. No matter how they structured the stadium financing, it's hitting hard now and could hit harder in the future scheduled re-fi. Sucking chest wound.

[CompSci87]

This time maybe they should threaten to cut football to get the alums to pony up.

[CompSci87]

This time maybe they should threaten to cut football to get the alums to pony up.

[ColoradoTree]

At this point, is C.al baseball effectively immune from getting shut down because of the alumni support?  If memory serves, baseball was saved largely through a one-time fundraising effort to raise money, but I don't believe it established a dedicated ongoing funding source through an annuity or anything like that.  So, while it might be a heel turn for C.al to come back to eliminate the program now, I'm not sure baseball is safe for them.  (This article/news release suggests that the baseball reprieve might be similar to the men's gymnastics reprieve, where their fundraising target was supposed to cover net expenses for the next 7-10 years: http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/04/08/base...ue-at-cal/, so baseball might be safe for another few years.) 

Since men's and women's gymnastics and women's lacrosse were also on the chopping block last time around, I expect those would be the obvious candidates this time around, too.  (Rugby was going to be "reassigned" to some new tier above club sports but short of varsity, but not sure what financial impact that would have.)  Anyway, here's a list of the 13 men's sports that C.al offers, if you're looking for other likely candidates:

Baseball
Basketball
Crew
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Gymnastics
Rugby
Soccer
Swimming & Diving
Tennis
Track and Field
Water Polo

By contrast, Stanford offers 16 varsity men's sports (all of the above, less rugby, and plus Fencing, Sailing, Volleyball, and Wrestling), and UCLA offers just 10 (the above sports, less rugby, crew, gymnastics, and swimming/diving, and plus volleyball).  Also, UCLA's cross country and track and field teams are listed as co-ed teams (though obviously they would still compete separately), so that may be a slight administrative savings, though I'm not sure how large that would be. 

Assuming football and basketball, as moneymakers, are safe, you could make an argument for any of the remaining C.al teams to get axed.  The problem, of course, is that for some of the Olympic sports, they're only partially endowed and aren't as costly as some of the other programs, meaning you might have to cut several teams just to make a dent.  Last time around, donors rallied to save each of the threatened teams, so perhaps what's needed this time around is a more comprehensive approach: identify fundraising goals needed to make each sport's costs fully covered, and say that each men's team that doesn't hit that mark will be eliminated or downgraded to club status. 

Our adversaries over at BI seem to have differing views on the subject, including frustration with the UCB administration, frustration with the combination of decreasing state funding and additional state demands, belief that smaller Olympic sports should get axed this time around unless donations make those programs cost-neutral, and preference for the UCLA "fewer sports" model, among others.  http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...-athletics

[ColoradoTree]

At this point, is C.al baseball effectively immune from getting shut down because of the alumni support?  If memory serves, baseball was saved largely through a one-time fundraising effort to raise money, but I don't believe it established a dedicated ongoing funding source through an annuity or anything like that.  So, while it might be a heel turn for C.al to come back to eliminate the program now, I'm not sure baseball is safe for them.  (This article/news release suggests that the baseball reprieve might be similar to the men's gymnastics reprieve, where their fundraising target was supposed to cover net expenses for the next 7-10 years: http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/04/08/base...ue-at-cal/, so baseball might be safe for another few years.) 

Since men's and women's gymnastics and women's lacrosse were also on the chopping block last time around, I expect those would be the obvious candidates this time around, too.  (Rugby was going to be "reassigned" to some new tier above club sports but short of varsity, but not sure what financial impact that would have.)  Anyway, here's a list of the 13 men's sports that C.al offers, if you're looking for other likely candidates:

Baseball
Basketball
Crew
Cross Country
Football
Golf
Gymnastics
Rugby
Soccer
Swimming & Diving
Tennis
Track and Field
Water Polo

By contrast, Stanford offers 16 varsity men's sports (all of the above, less rugby, and plus Fencing, Sailing, Volleyball, and Wrestling), and UCLA offers just 10 (the above sports, less rugby, crew, gymnastics, and swimming/diving, and plus volleyball).  Also, UCLA's cross country and track and field teams are listed as co-ed teams (though obviously they would still compete separately), so that may be a slight administrative savings, though I'm not sure how large that would be. 

Assuming football and basketball, as moneymakers, are safe, you could make an argument for any of the remaining C.al teams to get axed.  The problem, of course, is that for some of the Olympic sports, they're only partially endowed and aren't as costly as some of the other programs, meaning you might have to cut several teams just to make a dent.  Last time around, donors rallied to save each of the threatened teams, so perhaps what's needed this time around is a more comprehensive approach: identify fundraising goals needed to make each sport's costs fully covered, and say that each men's team that doesn't hit that mark will be eliminated or downgraded to club status. 

Our adversaries over at BI seem to have differing views on the subject, including frustration with the UCB administration, frustration with the combination of decreasing state funding and additional state demands, belief that smaller Olympic sports should get axed this time around unless donations make those programs cost-neutral, and preference for the UCLA "fewer sports" model, among others.  http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...-athletics

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Interesting.  I know a common target of scorn will be the football program (and its ~$6 million annual coaching budget), but it should be noted that the Rose Bowl paid out $35 million to the Pac-12 this year.  I'm not sure exactly how much of that C.al received, but my understanding is that Pac-12 teams typically split the payouts pretty evenly.

I'd be interested to see the athletic department budget with the football program extracted, to see them both separately.  I spent about five minutes googling and then gave up.  The numbers should all be public, no?

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Interesting.  I know a common target of scorn will be the football program (and its ~$6 million annual coaching budget), but it should be noted that the Rose Bowl paid out $35 million to the Pac-12 this year.  I'm not sure exactly how much of that C.al received, but my understanding is that Pac-12 teams typically split the payouts pretty evenly.

I'd be interested to see the athletic department budget with the football program extracted, to see them both separately.  I spent about five minutes googling and then gave up.  The numbers should all be public, no?

[Spiny_Norman]

Athletic revenue and spending data is collected and reported by the federal Dept of Education.  C.al's record is at http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetails....303920504d

Click on Revenues and Expenses tab for details.

[Spiny_Norman]

Athletic revenue and spending data is collected and reported by the federal Dept of Education.  C.al's record is at http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetails....303920504d

Click on Revenues and Expenses tab for details.

[TreesAndBirds]

I note that, by university, UCB athletes won the second largest number of Olympic medals in 2012. If they shut down some Olympic sports those athletes go elsewhere so likely no net loss for our universities, but it's ashame if a strong Olympic contributor is forced to shut programs.

And I want to beat them because our guys/gals are smarter, more talented, work harder, etc, not because they cant afford to compete.

I hope some alums step up to help them.

http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/stu...ic-medals/

[TreesAndBirds]

I note that, by university, UCB athletes won the second largest number of Olympic medals in 2012. If they shut down some Olympic sports those athletes go elsewhere so likely no net loss for our universities, but it's ashame if a strong Olympic contributor is forced to shut programs.

And I want to beat them because our guys/gals are smarter, more talented, work harder, etc, not because they cant afford to compete.

I hope some alums step up to help them.

http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/stu...ic-medals/

[2006alum]

At first glance I wondered how they reported revenue, since according to the link below, UCB netted $9,191,600 for all revenues minus all expenses. So running a surplus. However, there's also this footnote: "We also had the following non-operating expenses: Debt Service $16,995,253, Loan Repayments $622,167, and Capital Expenditures $50,820; Between both non-operating and operating expenses, the total in-year expenses were $94,016,543."

Do we know how that debt was incurred? Debt servicing pushes them from a $9m surplus to a $9m deficit. If it's from prior operating deficits, that's unfortunate that they're being dragged down even after righting the ship. On the other hand, if it's debt servicing on the football stadium, for example, then it is reasonable to include it in their present-day expenses. Either way, I don't know how the figure being reported in the media is $3m.

Also, if they're looking to cut a team, men's tennis costs $18,261 per participant, women's is $20,068, and women's softball is $21,220. Those are the three highest after men's and women's basketball and men's football, all three of which are net revenue generators.

Athletic revenue and spending data is collected and reported by the federal Dept of Education.  C.al's record is at http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetails....303920504d

Click on Revenues and Expenses tab for details.

[2006alum]

At first glance I wondered how they reported revenue, since according to the link below, UCB netted $9,191,600 for all revenues minus all expenses. So running a surplus. However, there's also this footnote: "We also had the following non-operating expenses: Debt Service $16,995,253, Loan Repayments $622,167, and Capital Expenditures $50,820; Between both non-operating and operating expenses, the total in-year expenses were $94,016,543."

Do we know how that debt was incurred? Debt servicing pushes them from a $9m surplus to a $9m deficit. If it's from prior operating deficits, that's unfortunate that they're being dragged down even after righting the ship. On the other hand, if it's debt servicing on the football stadium, for example, then it is reasonable to include it in their present-day expenses. Either way, I don't know how the figure being reported in the media is $3m.

Also, if they're looking to cut a team, men's tennis costs $18,261 per participant, women's is $20,068, and women's softball is $21,220. Those are the three highest after men's and women's basketball and men's football, all three of which are net revenue generators.

Athletic revenue and spending data is collected and reported by the federal Dept of Education.  C.al's record is at http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetails....303920504d

Click on Revenues and Expenses tab for details.

[Spiny_Norman]

UC's financial situation is not as dire as the one faced by the State of Louisiana.  The governor is warning that LSU may have to shut down in the spring semester because they cannot afford to pay the faculty and staff.  No classes, no athletic eligibility - no LSU Tiger football.  And the deficit next year is projected as twice as big as this year.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2...d_spe.html

[Spiny_Norman]

UC's financial situation is not as dire as the one faced by the State of Louisiana.  The governor is warning that LSU may have to shut down in the spring semester because they cannot afford to pay the faculty and staff.  No classes, no athletic eligibility - no LSU Tiger football.  And the deficit next year is projected as twice as big as this year.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2...d_spe.html

[CornFed]

Sounds to me like the Fireman First tactic. Politicians who run into problems raising taxes immediately scream, "We'll have to shut down the fire department next week without it!" Stuff like the governor's arts council or tourism promotion or sports-stadium subsidies never gets mentioned.

Amen, brother!!!

[CornFed]

Sounds to me like the Fireman First tactic. Politicians who run into problems raising taxes immediately scream, "We'll have to shut down the fire department next week without it!" Stuff like the governor's arts council or tourism promotion or sports-stadium subsidies never gets mentioned.

Amen, brother!!!

[winflop]

Also, if they're looking to cut a team, men's tennis costs $18,261 per participant, women's is $20,068, and women's softball is $21,220. Those are the three highest after men's and women's basketball and men's football, all three of which are net revenue generators.

So the whole "we made $9M from operations" is an exercise in how to lie with statistics.  Cash flow from operations is positive, but cash flow from financing is seriously negative.  So overall cash flow is negative = 59er AD is STILL LOSING MONEY NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT.

But they don't need to cut teams, just halve the number of scholies.  Of course, that would pretty much kill the tennis teams anyway because nobody will accept a schollie in that sport to a school where half the roster is walk-ons.  But from what I know, softball is already partial schollie.

[winflop]

Also, if they're looking to cut a team, men's tennis costs $18,261 per participant, women's is $20,068, and women's softball is $21,220. Those are the three highest after men's and women's basketball and men's football, all three of which are net revenue generators.

So the whole "we made $9M from operations" is an exercise in how to lie with statistics.  Cash flow from operations is positive, but cash flow from financing is seriously negative.  So overall cash flow is negative = 59er AD is STILL LOSING MONEY NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT.

But they don't need to cut teams, just halve the number of scholies.  Of course, that would pretty much kill the tennis teams anyway because nobody will accept a schollie in that sport to a school where half the roster is walk-ons.  But from what I know, softball is already partial schollie.

[BobK]

The loss is the debt service for the stadium and the brobdingnagian training center. 

[BobK]

The loss is the debt service for the stadium and the brobdingnagian training center. 

[2006alum]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=14588.msg156195#msg156195 date=1455138002]
Also, if they're looking to cut a team, men's tennis costs $18,261 per participant, women's is $20,068, and women's softball is $21,220. Those are the three highest after men's and women's basketball and men's football, all three of which are net revenue generators.

So the whole "we made $9M from operations" is an exercise in how to lie with statistics.  Cash flow from operations is positive, but cash flow from financing is seriously negative.  So overall cash flow is negative = 59er AD is STILL LOSING MONEY NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT.

But they don't need to cut teams, just halve the number of scholies.  Of course, that would pretty much kill the tennis teams anyway because nobody will accept a schollie in that sport to a school where half the roster is walk-ons.  But from what I know, softball is already partial schollie.
[/quote]

I don't think ANY of the sport-specific numbers include costs of athletic scholarships. That would factor into another category, "Athletically Related Student Aid," which is a lump sum for all sports, period. Surprisingly, despite Title IX, at Cal men's scholies total $5,231,781 in expenses vs. $4,388,461 for women's. Note also that the per-sport estimates are "Operating (Game-Day) Expenses by Team." That probably doesn't include things like weight rooms, rehab, etc., which would be part of the "not allocated by gender or sport" general expenses of $22,775,153.

Wow, athletic departments are expensive!

[2006alum]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=14588.msg156195#msg156195 date=1455138002]
Also, if they're looking to cut a team, men's tennis costs $18,261 per participant, women's is $20,068, and women's softball is $21,220. Those are the three highest after men's and women's basketball and men's football, all three of which are net revenue generators.

So the whole "we made $9M from operations" is an exercise in how to lie with statistics.  Cash flow from operations is positive, but cash flow from financing is seriously negative.  So overall cash flow is negative = 59er AD is STILL LOSING MONEY NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT.

But they don't need to cut teams, just halve the number of scholies.  Of course, that would pretty much kill the tennis teams anyway because nobody will accept a schollie in that sport to a school where half the roster is walk-ons.  But from what I know, softball is already partial schollie.
[/quote]

I don't think ANY of the sport-specific numbers include costs of athletic scholarships. That would factor into another category, "Athletically Related Student Aid," which is a lump sum for all sports, period. Surprisingly, despite Title IX, at Cal men's scholies total $5,231,781 in expenses vs. $4,388,461 for women's. Note also that the per-sport estimates are "Operating (Game-Day) Expenses by Team." That probably doesn't include things like weight rooms, rehab, etc., which would be part of the "not allocated by gender or sport" general expenses of $22,775,153.

Wow, athletic departments are expensive!

[BostonCard]

The loss is the debt service for the stadium and the of exceedingly large proportions training center.

And they haven't started paying down the principle yet.  Their debt servicing will double once that starts.

BC

[BostonCard]

The loss is the debt service for the stadium and the of exceedingly large proportions training center.

And they haven't started paying down the principle yet.  Their debt servicing will double once that starts.

BC

[CowboyIndian]

And they haven't started paying down the principle yet. 

Oh, they've been paying that down for a long time now.

[CowboyIndian]

And they haven't started paying down the principle yet. 

Oh, they've been paying that down for a long time now.