I think the incoming big change that could drastically alter collegiate sports will be the revenue sharing with the student-athletes, which supposedly a version is already drafted by the California legislation. Not Cal, but other schools might cut a lot of non-revenue sports as the effect thus allowing Cal to follow suit with lesser pushback.
Is it valid to say that if Cal sports were more successful and drew more paying customers and got more television exposure, the amount of institutional support needed would be reduced? If so, Clueless Carol needs to direct Empty Suit Jim to get his butt off dead center and upgrade every cash generating program. Fire deadbeat coaches and hire winning coaches. Maybe even drop some sports that are "dead weight" (for ex.,track and field, cross country, et al). Forget the Presidents Cup and dominate in the high profile cash producing sports (and maintain dominance in other positive sports - swimming, water polo, et al.- even the club sports - crew, rugby, et al). Sadly, I don't think Empty suit Jim can handle the assignment and he needs to go too. However, given his insipid contract extension, maybe he can be transferred to the grounds and maintenance department.
Not sure if it is fair to keep saying the UC Berkeley admin does not support athletics. We got a pricey seismic upgrade of Memorial, a new and expensive high performance center, a $30 million kick to the AD budget, etc. Yes we lack a dedicated practice facility for MBB, but given everything that happened with ticket sales and the stadium financing, it's sort of understandable. A few years ago the vibe on the football program was trending upwards and then a couple of disappointing seasons (with extenuating circumstances) derailed everything. I do think Mark Fox has worn out his welcome, but the idea that men's basketball can't succeed without an expensive new practice facility is bullshit. There is so much wasted money spent at universities on flashy new facilities and associated support staff, and it rarely has a transformational impact. Did the HIgh Performance Center that we so desperately needed really make that big of a difference? We are worse off now than we were before.
That amount of general campus support to athletics tends to counter the popular narrative that a lack of institutional support is a sizable contributor to the struggles of FB/MBB/WBB/BB.
I think the incoming big change that could drastically alter collegiate sports will be the revenue sharing with the student-athletes, which supposedly a version is already drafted by the California legislation. Not Cal, but other schools might cut a lot of non-revenue sports as the effect thus allowing Cal to follow suit with lesser pushback.
"REPORT: Cal manages $3.7 million surplus in FY2022, with huge assist from UC Berkeley"
ISWYDT. Sly devil, you.
Is it valid to say that if Cal sports were more successful and drew more paying customers and got more television exposure, the amount of institutional support needed would be reduced? If so, Clueless Carol needs to direct Empty Suit Jim to get his butt off dead center and upgrade every cash generating program. Fire deadbeat coaches and hire winning coaches. Maybe even drop some sports that are "dead weight" (for ex.,track and field, cross country, et al). Forget the Presidents Cup and dominate in the high profile cash producing sports (and maintain dominance in other positive sports - swimming, water polo, et al.- even the club sports - crew, rugby, et al). Sadly, I don't think Empty suit Jim can handle the assignment and he needs to go too. However, given his insipid contract extension, maybe he can be transferred to the grounds and maintenance department.
Cal needs to reduce # of sports.
Let's see how much we get from UCLA's B1G bag.
Not sure if it is fair to keep saying the UC Berkeley admin does not support athletics. We got a pricey seismic upgrade of Memorial, a new and expensive high performance center, a $30 million kick to the AD budget, etc. Yes we lack a dedicated practice facility for MBB, but given everything that happened with ticket sales and the stadium financing, it's sort of understandable. A few years ago the vibe on the football program was trending upwards and then a couple of disappointing seasons (with extenuating circumstances) derailed everything. I do think Mark Fox has worn out his welcome, but the idea that men's basketball can't succeed without an expensive new practice facility is bullshit. There is so much wasted money spent at universities on flashy new facilities and associated support staff, and it rarely has a transformational impact. Did the HIgh Performance Center that we so desperately needed really make that big of a difference? We are worse off now than we were before.
Great, we have beaucoup bucks to fire Fox.
Christ: "How do you like me, now?"
Bear Fans: "Stop hobbling revenue sports and you want have to give us so much."
A positive finding
I don't think it's weird that the $30M is booked as revenue. I thought that was standard accounting, even if it misses context.
Also, isn't this technically a $1.3M loss if we have to pay back the extra money the Pac-12 got paid out from media rights?
Had to stare at the title a bit to confirm it was not “mismanagement” - my natural inclination these days .
Man if I only had won Powerball
That amount of general campus support to athletics tends to counter the popular narrative that a lack of institutional support is a sizable contributor to the struggles of FB/MBB/WBB/BB.