Not a chance: our Olympic sports already operate on slim budgets so the savings would be small, most of their funding comes from donors who loves those sports, the Title IX logistics would be very difficult, the angry outcry from alumni would be huge, and many of them punch above their weight so the entire athletic department and broader Cal community would suffer (Sandy Barbour was an excellent AD but this was her one downfall)
1. This is a June fiscal year-end, so the heart of Covid's impact will hit in FY21. The full damage isn't known yet, but it'll probably be pretty bad.
2. UC Regents saved Athletics, which transferred an additional $20m to its athletics "subsidiary". Regents essentially kicked the can down the road because they would have been smashed by a loss of donations if they didn't support Athletics. Also, the "profit" is probably to finance athletics against a probable bad FY21 fiscal deficit. Meanwhile, UC Berkeley swung from a $60m gain in position to a whopping $148m loss. The loss is due to a rise in payroll expenses, rather than any change in revenues. This will not shock you, but UC Berkeley is underfunded by the State of California. The main university can withstand losses for longer, but I have no idea how much longer.
3. Cal lost $3m in ticket sales for the fiscal year ended June 30th, but travel fell by $2m.
4. Cal lost $0.7m by going to the Cheez-Its Bowl. It broke even by going to the Red Box Bowl because it was within driving distance.
5. Athletic aid for non-revenue sports fell by about a million (about 15%). This infers that scholarship levels were cut.
A positive for sure but you are right in suggesting that all that is happening is that Athletics is kicking the can down the road. At some point we probably will have to pay the piper. Maybe new TV contracts with the networks will offer some long term relief.
Agreed, but we should take note that ticket sales are only $8M out of total revenues of $110M, of which football accounts for only $6M.
And yet we refuse to lower prices so that more fans will attend. That means that Cal football is playing in front of an empty-looking stadium, giving up most of the home field advantage, ruining the TV spectacle, hurting the Cal brand, and destroying our future fan base...to "increase" revenues by ~2% per year?!
Tying to the other two articles that went up today, I believe the wait-and-see approach has also got to do with how the whole NCAA lawsuit, etc. plays out. Unlike most of their competitors (UCLA and Stanford), Cal Athletics cares far more about their Non-NCAA programs (men's crew and rugby). That non-association with the NCAA might still be creatively explored to circumvent some of the Title IX issues to even consider cutting sports in a more surgical way (than the 30->13 barebone scenario).
The rosier financial picture is still kind of a mirage that comes from the University assuming the Memorial Stadium debt in exchange for future development of the Edwards Stadium land. Even as the resident sunshine pumper, I don't know if I would say this budget excess is "good news", but just push the deficit elsewhere.
I really hope the AD cuts 6-8 sports and redirects that money into men's football and men's basketball.
Not a chance: our Olympic sports already operate on slim budgets so the savings would be small, most of their funding comes from donors who loves those sports, the Title IX logistics would be very difficult, the angry outcry from alumni would be huge, and many of them punch above their weight so the entire athletic department and broader Cal community would suffer (Sandy Barbour was an excellent AD but this was her one downfall)
It's going to be really difficult to do and keep a Title IX balance without losing legacy, championship winning programs.
Good news!
Good News, Everyone! I've invented a device that makes you read this in your head!
Does this mean we can hire a new basketball coach? Please, please pretty please!
Jason Kidd?
Not my first choice, but preferable to our current reality.
Not completely inspiring but OK for the fanbase I am sure.
Of course he is getting to be an older guy so I am not sure it would really be a boon for recruiting at this point.
He's 46 which is still young-ish in the world of college basketball coaching.
We should hire him before he becomes too old
1. This is a June fiscal year-end, so the heart of Covid's impact will hit in FY21. The full damage isn't known yet, but it'll probably be pretty bad.
2. UC Regents saved Athletics, which transferred an additional $20m to its athletics "subsidiary". Regents essentially kicked the can down the road because they would have been smashed by a loss of donations if they didn't support Athletics. Also, the "profit" is probably to finance athletics against a probable bad FY21 fiscal deficit. Meanwhile, UC Berkeley swung from a $60m gain in position to a whopping $148m loss. The loss is due to a rise in payroll expenses, rather than any change in revenues. This will not shock you, but UC Berkeley is underfunded by the State of California. The main university can withstand losses for longer, but I have no idea how much longer.
3. Cal lost $3m in ticket sales for the fiscal year ended June 30th, but travel fell by $2m.
4. Cal lost $0.7m by going to the Cheez-Its Bowl. It broke even by going to the Red Box Bowl because it was within driving distance.
5. Athletic aid for non-revenue sports fell by about a million (about 15%). This infers that scholarship levels were cut.
A positive for sure but you are right in suggesting that all that is happening is that Athletics is kicking the can down the road. At some point we probably will have to pay the piper. Maybe new TV contracts with the networks will offer some long term relief.
Agreed, but we should take note that ticket sales are only $8M out of total revenues of $110M, of which football accounts for only $6M.
And yet we refuse to lower prices so that more fans will attend. That means that Cal football is playing in front of an empty-looking stadium, giving up most of the home field advantage, ruining the TV spectacle, hurting the Cal brand, and destroying our future fan base...to "increase" revenues by ~2% per year?!
Tying to the other two articles that went up today, I believe the wait-and-see approach has also got to do with how the whole NCAA lawsuit, etc. plays out. Unlike most of their competitors (UCLA and Stanford), Cal Athletics cares far more about their Non-NCAA programs (men's crew and rugby). That non-association with the NCAA might still be creatively explored to circumvent some of the Title IX issues to even consider cutting sports in a more surgical way (than the 30->13 barebone scenario).
The rosier financial picture is still kind of a mirage that comes from the University assuming the Memorial Stadium debt in exchange for future development of the Edwards Stadium land. Even as the resident sunshine pumper, I don't know if I would say this budget excess is "good news", but just push the deficit elsewhere.
Tactical accounting maneuver on Memorial Stadium.