[Cadet84]

Those pesky professors just can\'t let go of the "education" thing

UC Berkeley urged to slash athletics subsidy

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...1ED854.DTL

[Cadet84]

Those pesky professors just can\'t let go of the "education" thing

UC Berkeley urged to slash athletics subsidy

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...1ED854.DTL

[Farm93]

The crazy part is that those recent subsidies were happening during an unprecedented "Golden" era for C.a.l athletics.

The program had a top 5 football program for the first time in 30+ years, and seemed to have ticket sales and TV revenue that top teams in the Pac-10 are lucky enough to enjoy.  The AD had a recently renovated and expanded basketball facility too.  And all of that was not enough?

What exactly will happen if C.a.l returns to its more traditional 4-8 to 6-6 type record in football?

I can only guess the C.a.l AD will really be eager to get that first Comcast/Fox/ESPN Pac-12 revenue check to help reduce the gap.

The C.a.l AD seems like your average Payday loan customer.  Living well beyond their means, counting on finding a relative that will ultimately bail them out year after year.

[Farm93]

The crazy part is that those recent subsidies were happening during an unprecedented "Golden" era for C.a.l athletics.

The program had a top 5 football program for the first time in 30+ years, and seemed to have ticket sales and TV revenue that top teams in the Pac-10 are lucky enough to enjoy.  The AD had a recently renovated and expanded basketball facility too.  And all of that was not enough?

What exactly will happen if C.a.l returns to its more traditional 4-8 to 6-6 type record in football?

I can only guess the C.a.l AD will really be eager to get that first Comcast/Fox/ESPN Pac-12 revenue check to help reduce the gap.

The C.a.l AD seems like your average Payday loan customer.  Living well beyond their means, counting on finding a relative that will ultimately bail them out year after year.

[Redrum]

Never beaten,  just starved to death.

Or was that field hockey?  Whatever, shorts or those little skirty thingees,  UCB won\'t be able to pay for them.

Schade

[Redrum]

Never beaten,  just starved to death.

Or was that field hockey?  Whatever, shorts or those little skirty thingees,  UCB won\'t be able to pay for them.

Schade

[Farm93]

The report clearly recommends that C.a.l ditch about 6-7 sports to get more in line with the non-Stanford Pac-10 average.  Using the Pac-10 norms it becomes pretty easy to find the 5 or so that are likely to be demoted or killed.

M Gym, W Gym, W Lacrosse, W Field Hockey, and Men\'s Crew all seemed destined to be reduced to club level because they are not core Pac-10 sports.  And Rugby would seem to be the poster child for the type of sport that more financially disciplined Pac-10 schools have kept off the Varsity list, but I know Rugby will be saved even though the alleged set of donors probably would keep donating if the team was reduced to the club level.  Reducing Rugby would also help with Title IX compliance.

The full report is rather interesting.  Stanford is mentioned by name on 4 occassions.  And in each instance C.a.l either can not meet, should not try to meet, or has not met the Stanford standard.  Warmed my heart.  :)

Another interesting aspect, for me at least, was that UCLA was mentioned only once.  UCLA has maintained a much more realistic subsidy level due in part to better financial controls according to panel.  Crazy me would think the panel would attempt to compare C.a.l against that apparently better UC AD model more frequently to really drive home that improvements are possible and practical.

[Farm93]

The report clearly recommends that C.a.l ditch about 6-7 sports to get more in line with the non-Stanford Pac-10 average.  Using the Pac-10 norms it becomes pretty easy to find the 5 or so that are likely to be demoted or killed.

M Gym, W Gym, W Lacrosse, W Field Hockey, and Men\'s Crew all seemed destined to be reduced to club level because they are not core Pac-10 sports.  And Rugby would seem to be the poster child for the type of sport that more financially disciplined Pac-10 schools have kept off the Varsity list, but I know Rugby will be saved even though the alleged set of donors probably would keep donating if the team was reduced to the club level.  Reducing Rugby would also help with Title IX compliance.

The full report is rather interesting.  Stanford is mentioned by name on 4 occassions.  And in each instance C.a.l either can not meet, should not try to meet, or has not met the Stanford standard.  Warmed my heart.  :)

Another interesting aspect, for me at least, was that UCLA was mentioned only once.  UCLA has maintained a much more realistic subsidy level due in part to better financial controls according to panel.  Crazy me would think the panel would attempt to compare C.a.l against that apparently better UC AD model more frequently to really drive home that improvements are possible and practical.

[fullmetal]

The kal men\'s crew has funding resources similar to their men\'s rugby team.

[fullmetal]

The kal men\'s crew has funding resources similar to their men\'s rugby team.

[Leftcoast]

Yeah ... can\'t see Call axing crew, the rest sound about right.

[Leftcoast]

Yeah ... can\'t see Call axing crew, the rest sound about right.

[Redrum]

It is a public university phenomenon.  All over the U.S. alumni of public universities do not donate at the same level as alumni of many leading private universities.   It\'s just that Cal supporters\'  expectations and rhetoric  --that Cal is the pre-eminent public institution in America-- doesn\'t match the reality of their alumni tight-fistedness.    Their discussions on their own boards focus a lot on why the heavy-hitter Cal grads don\'t step up.   "Where are our John Arrillagas?"  is the essence of their complaints.  Waiting for the knight in shining armor to rescue them from themselves.  The obvious question in reply would be:  with SO many Cal grads in the Bay Area and N. California alone,  Where are the Average Joes?    Cal graduates (roughly) as many kids each year as total enrolled undergraduates at Stanford.    As striking as the difference between the population and economic base between the North and the South in the Civil War.    

And yet, they don\'t give.   They will spend their money on season tickets, which is paying for direct value in return,  but as a group are apparently not much moved by the needs of the institution itself.  At least, that\'s exactly what the scale of the giving indicates.    One of my best friends was a Cal grad and-- until Cal started squeezing every last drop from their loyal ticket-buying base-- a regular attendee even during the Holmoe years.   When I asked him if he donated to Cal (either to the athletic dept. or the university) he seemed perplexed as to why he\'d even consider it.    And he\'s a great guy.   But, he\'s got the "Cal mentality",  i.e. "I pay my taxes.  It\'s the state\'s problem,  not mine."

Or, an alternative theory:  they see how badly managed Cal athletics are and figure "Why should I donate money to watch these clowns piss it away?"

[Redrum]

It is a public university phenomenon.  All over the U.S. alumni of public universities do not donate at the same level as alumni of many leading private universities.   It\'s just that Cal supporters\'  expectations and rhetoric  --that Cal is the pre-eminent public institution in America-- doesn\'t match the reality of their alumni tight-fistedness.    Their discussions on their own boards focus a lot on why the heavy-hitter Cal grads don\'t step up.   "Where are our John Arrillagas?"  is the essence of their complaints.  Waiting for the knight in shining armor to rescue them from themselves.  The obvious question in reply would be:  with SO many Cal grads in the Bay Area and N. California alone,  Where are the Average Joes?    Cal graduates (roughly) as many kids each year as total enrolled undergraduates at Stanford.    As striking as the difference between the population and economic base between the North and the South in the Civil War.    

And yet, they don\'t give.   They will spend their money on season tickets, which is paying for direct value in return,  but as a group are apparently not much moved by the needs of the institution itself.  At least, that\'s exactly what the scale of the giving indicates.    One of my best friends was a Cal grad and-- until Cal started squeezing every last drop from their loyal ticket-buying base-- a regular attendee even during the Holmoe years.   When I asked him if he donated to Cal (either to the athletic dept. or the university) he seemed perplexed as to why he\'d even consider it.    And he\'s a great guy.   But, he\'s got the "Cal mentality",  i.e. "I pay my taxes.  It\'s the state\'s problem,  not mine."

Or, an alternative theory:  they see how badly managed Cal athletics are and figure "Why should I donate money to watch these clowns piss it away?"

[Farm93]

Yeah ... can\'t see Call axing crew, the rest sound about right.

Some beloved men\'s program is going to have to get hit to get to that 20-22 program level.  They can\'t cut 7-9 women\'s sports.  UCLA has a nice history of cutting very popular and successful male programs to balance the budget.  So the model is there should C.a.l ever want to be as successful as UCLA in athletics or AD budget management.

Take a look at the C.a.l list of sports and it gets really tough to find good targets, and only a few have budgets large enough to actually make a difference.

Politically it is clear something big and symbolic is going to have to get cut this time because too many budgets in other areas at the university have been cut to and even through the bone.  (At least that is how it is portrayed in the report.)

Not that any of this is good news for Stanford.  If the C.a.l AD gets weak in Olympic sports as a consequence of budget discipline then future Cali kids will likely all head to UCLA.  And that talent consolidation could make UCLA an even more powerful force.  In almost all of the sports that could be impacted by C.a.l budget discipline UCLA has been Stanford\'s true rival for Pac-10 and NCAA titles.

[Farm93]

Yeah ... can\'t see Call axing crew, the rest sound about right.

Some beloved men\'s program is going to have to get hit to get to that 20-22 program level.  They can\'t cut 7-9 women\'s sports.  UCLA has a nice history of cutting very popular and successful male programs to balance the budget.  So the model is there should C.a.l ever want to be as successful as UCLA in athletics or AD budget management.

Take a look at the C.a.l list of sports and it gets really tough to find good targets, and only a few have budgets large enough to actually make a difference.

Politically it is clear something big and symbolic is going to have to get cut this time because too many budgets in other areas at the university have been cut to and even through the bone.  (At least that is how it is portrayed in the report.)

Not that any of this is good news for Stanford.  If the C.a.l AD gets weak in Olympic sports as a consequence of budget discipline then future Cali kids will likely all head to UCLA.  And that talent consolidation could make UCLA an even more powerful force.  In almost all of the sports that could be impacted by C.a.l budget discipline UCLA has been Stanford\'s true rival for Pac-10 and NCAA titles.

[Nan3cy]

Twenty years ago I was dating a Stanford engineer whose son figured he had the best of all worlds: he got into Stanford but decided to go to Kal and spend less on tuition. Every time he came home for the weekend or a holiday he\'d grouse about the kal bureaucracy, and his father would say, "That\'s what you get for going to a school that\'s run by the same people  who bring you the DMV."

Maybe that\'s why kal grads don\'t give to their university. They want to starve the beast -- even if feeding the beast is the only way to support their school.

[Nan3cy]

Twenty years ago I was dating a Stanford engineer whose son figured he had the best of all worlds: he got into Stanford but decided to go to Kal and spend less on tuition. Every time he came home for the weekend or a holiday he\'d grouse about the kal bureaucracy, and his father would say, "That\'s what you get for going to a school that\'s run by the same people  who bring you the DMV."

Maybe that\'s why kal grads don\'t give to their university. They want to starve the beast -- even if feeding the beast is the only way to support their school.

[Mick]

Let me throw out a few...

1.  Student experience.  Large commuter schools just aren\'t intimate and don\'t have the same student experience.  I\'ve heard this from attendees of most large state university systems in the west.  Name the state (one notable exception: Washington) and I\'ve heard it from an alum.  I went there to college, I paid my tuition, I bought football tickets, I got a job, I never go back.  I paid for a functional experience and I received a functional experience in my 5/6 years as an undergrad.  Those are the themes I hear.

In fact...I hear a slightly disquieting theme, that students don\'t really like their undergraduate experience...at least not in the way that students at smaller, more intimate schools.  Classes you don\'t get, miserable geographies (I\'d like Santa Barbara, can live with Westwood, wouldn\'t live in Berkeley at the point of a gun), extra years\' worth of tuition, lots of departmental infighting, 400 in a class, unmotivated TAs, administration that reacts with the speed and customer service of the DMV, etc., etc....  Right after I graduated from SCU, I roomed with a Cal grad.  He enjoyed Cal, but within two years, would have little to do with it.  I still do a ton with SCU, and really enjoyed the experience despite the fact that I would have had an excellent education at Cal or one of the other top level UC\'s.

2.  Athlete experience.  A few years back, there was a New Yorker article that described why universities felt it important to recruit athletes.  Greatly summarized, there were six reasons (a) because athletes were in better shape than typical students, so they could work harder if necessary; (b) that athletes spent time mastering their sport, hours they worked in lieu of class, lab or library hours; © that athletes were trained to work in teaming situations (versus individual situations) and that team goals/acheivements were exalted over individual goals/achievements, so athletes were actually better prepared to cooperate than overly competitive EE/CS types; (d) that athletes were leaders in ways that nonathletes typically were not and (e) that athletes felt a much closer bond to their school than the typical student, and therefore had a much more emotional tie to the school and (f) successful athletics often translated into improved donations.  At least half of those answers indicate why athletes tend to support their alma maters in ways that nonathletes don\'t.  Arrillaga played basketball at Stanford.  Packard played football at Stanford.  Sobrato played baseball at Santa Clara.  Steve Nash has given many hundreds of thousands to SCU.

3.  TANSTAAFL.  There Ain\'t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.  Taxes and tickets pay for sports, not alum donations.  Why should I invest?

4.  Their alums aren\'t really that well off.  They\'re not poor, but there aren\'t that many Arrillagas at state universities.  Pockets are medium deep, not DEEP.

[Mick]

Let me throw out a few...

1.  Student experience.  Large commuter schools just aren\'t intimate and don\'t have the same student experience.  I\'ve heard this from attendees of most large state university systems in the west.  Name the state (one notable exception: Washington) and I\'ve heard it from an alum.  I went there to college, I paid my tuition, I bought football tickets, I got a job, I never go back.  I paid for a functional experience and I received a functional experience in my 5/6 years as an undergrad.  Those are the themes I hear.

In fact...I hear a slightly disquieting theme, that students don\'t really like their undergraduate experience...at least not in the way that students at smaller, more intimate schools.  Classes you don\'t get, miserable geographies (I\'d like Santa Barbara, can live with Westwood, wouldn\'t live in Berkeley at the point of a gun), extra years\' worth of tuition, lots of departmental infighting, 400 in a class, unmotivated TAs, administration that reacts with the speed and customer service of the DMV, etc., etc....  Right after I graduated from SCU, I roomed with a Cal grad.  He enjoyed Cal, but within two years, would have little to do with it.  I still do a ton with SCU, and really enjoyed the experience despite the fact that I would have had an excellent education at Cal or one of the other top level UC\'s.

2.  Athlete experience.  A few years back, there was a New Yorker article that described why universities felt it important to recruit athletes.  Greatly summarized, there were six reasons (a) because athletes were in better shape than typical students, so they could work harder if necessary; (b) that athletes spent time mastering their sport, hours they worked in lieu of class, lab or library hours; © that athletes were trained to work in teaming situations (versus individual situations) and that team goals/acheivements were exalted over individual goals/achievements, so athletes were actually better prepared to cooperate than overly competitive EE/CS types; (d) that athletes were leaders in ways that nonathletes typically were not and (e) that athletes felt a much closer bond to their school than the typical student, and therefore had a much more emotional tie to the school and (f) successful athletics often translated into improved donations.  At least half of those answers indicate why athletes tend to support their alma maters in ways that nonathletes don\'t.  Arrillaga played basketball at Stanford.  Packard played football at Stanford.  Sobrato played baseball at Santa Clara.  Steve Nash has given many hundreds of thousands to SCU.

3.  TANSTAAFL.  There Ain\'t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.  Taxes and tickets pay for sports, not alum donations.  Why should I invest?

4.  Their alums aren\'t really that well off.  They\'re not poor, but there aren\'t that many Arrillagas at state universities.  Pockets are medium deep, not DEEP.

[Redrum]

One thing to note.    All parents hope that their kids have fun in college.  How could we wish otherwise?  But not that many are willing to pay for it.  If you made them pick only five out a list of six things offered/worth paying for at college,  things like finding their calling in life,  training for a profession, growing up,  learning responsibility, learning to function as an adult  would make the list.   Most often "having fun" would not make that list.  At least not on a parent\'s motivation to pay.   And  the taxpayers would impeach any politician who advocated a higher tax or fees so that kids could have more fun in school.

My second kid,  Redrumette II,  has had an absolute ball at a big state university.  The only part I feel good about paying for has happened in the last few weeks when she emerged from the self-absorbed fog of teenageness and began to seriously think about how to leverage her remaing time in school into a career.  Maturity comes slowly and for the most part they  just have to spend time in grade to grow up,  but the kids who work while going to school and worry and put up with brobdingnagian classes and have to put effort into every step forward...those are the kids I really admire.  Don\'t envy them, but admire them.  If that means they don\'t feel like giving back to places like Kal,  well,  tough noogies.  

[Redrum]

One thing to note.    All parents hope that their kids have fun in college.  How could we wish otherwise?  But not that many are willing to pay for it.  If you made them pick only five out a list of six things offered/worth paying for at college,  things like finding their calling in life,  training for a profession, growing up,  learning responsibility, learning to function as an adult  would make the list.   Most often "having fun" would not make that list.  At least not on a parent\'s motivation to pay.   And  the taxpayers would impeach any politician who advocated a higher tax or fees so that kids could have more fun in school.

My second kid,  Redrumette II,  has had an absolute ball at a big state university.  The only part I feel good about paying for has happened in the last few weeks when she emerged from the self-absorbed fog of teenageness and began to seriously think about how to leverage her remaing time in school into a career.  Maturity comes slowly and for the most part they  just have to spend time in grade to grow up,  but the kids who work while going to school and worry and put up with brobdingnagian classes and have to put effort into every step forward...those are the kids I really admire.  Don\'t envy them, but admire them.  If that means they don\'t feel like giving back to places like Kal,  well,  tough noogies.