[Giants]

I don’t understand why some people think the Regents should get involved in issues pertaining to the conference membership of UC schools.  It is a decision that should be made based upon the interests of each specific campus.  

Berkeley will lose no stature academically should the athletic department fold up and UCLA will not gain any academically notoriety should they choose to spend millions more on the athletic program.  

The Regents should be focusing their attention on academic  policy decisions that impact the entire system and not worry about whether Rutgers or Oregon State travels to southern California in the fall.

That's not the real world. Money rules everything. Cal's academic profile will absolutely be impacted if it has no sports programs, and so too will diversity on campus, and myriad of other issues. The UC Regents can't just focus on academics and otherwise live in a vacuum.

I think your response indicates a lack of understanding regarding the why individuals in this state select the college they attend.  I would suggest athletic prowess ranks at or near the bottom.  Heck, I would venture to say that 90% of students at Cal chose to enroll there without any consideration for whether Cal fielded a football team.  As for the diversity comment, are you serious? Cal is committed to the notion that the student body should reflect the demographics of the state. That will not change whether or not Cal has an athletic progra

Switching back to the school that prompts us to post here, do you think Stanford would lose its preeminent academic standing if they folded the athletic department? Of course not. Quite frankly, I don’t believe any of the top academic schools in the country would experience any loss from an academic perspective if they shut down their athletic program.

[Giants]

I don’t understand why some people think the Regents should get involved in issues pertaining to the conference membership of UC schools.  It is a decision that should be made based upon the interests of each specific campus.  

Berkeley will lose no stature academically should the athletic department fold up and UCLA will not gain any academically notoriety should they choose to spend millions more on the athletic program.  

The Regents should be focusing their attention on academic  policy decisions that impact the entire system and not worry about whether Rutgers or Oregon State travels to southern California in the fall.

That's not the real world. Money rules everything. Cal's academic profile will absolutely be impacted if it has no sports programs, and so too will diversity on campus, and myriad of other issues. The UC Regents can't just focus on academics and otherwise live in a vacuum.

I think your response indicates a lack of understanding regarding the why individuals in this state select the college they attend.  I would suggest athletic prowess ranks at or near the bottom.  Heck, I would venture to say that 90% of students at Cal chose to enroll there without any consideration for whether Cal fielded a football team.  As for the diversity comment, are you serious? Cal is committed to the notion that the student body should reflect the demographics of the state. That will not change whether or not Cal has an athletic progra

Switching back to the school that prompts us to post here, do you think Stanford would lose its preeminent academic standing if they folded the athletic department? Of course not. Quite frankly, I don’t believe any of the top academic schools in the country would experience any loss from an academic perspective if they shut down their athletic program.