I will credit Knowlton for not cutting any of Cal's 30 sports - the largest athletics program in the country for a public school (and behind only that of Stanford who recently reversed their decision to cut 11 sports). For comparison, UCLA only has only 24 sports (and none of the two big roster, non-NCAA governed male sports in Rugby and…
I will credit Knowlton for not cutting any of Cal's 30 sports - the largest athletics program in the country for a public school (and behind only that of Stanford who recently reversed their decision to cut 11 sports). For comparison, UCLA only has only 24 sports (and none of the two big roster, non-NCAA governed male sports in Rugby and Men's Rowing that also require an equal number of female spots due to Title IX); since this week is the NCAA Men's Swimming and Diving Championship, I will credit a big reason for Cal becoming a national powerhouse to UCLA cutting their men's swim program in 1994. Various Cal non-revenue programs have had varying degrees of successes in trying to fundraise enough money to be financially self-sustaining.
The only way to fiscally save all the sports is to make the money on football. (If the Internet is to be believed), the top basketball programs (Louisville, Duke, Kentucky) *only* makes $20 M in basketball revenue. For comparison, Cal Football already is making around $80+ M in revenue and that number could easily go up to $100+ M with a major bowl appearance.
Sure, you would like to optimize every revenue source, but you also would need to spend money to make money. Clearly, no major Cal donor is forcing Mark Fox out yet, or more importantly, pledging the funds for Cal to competitively hire an exciting new coach.
I'm content to give Fox another year, but my fear is more that he might get an extension for only a marginal improvement of getting Cal to the NIT.
I think this is essentially right. In terms of Athletic Department funding, Cal has (correctly, probably) decided that it is a Football School, in that Football success will drive revenue to make up for the cost drag of sponsoring so many other NCAA teams.
MBB, while it might bring in revenue, is more trying not to _lose_ money than it is to make money. You want success, sure, but more for secondary effects -- prestige, fan/alumni engagement, etc. that eventually loop back into driving revenue long-term. Year-to-year, while making money would be nice, the primary directive is to not get too far into the red.
That's sort of the play for many of the other sports as well, such as rugby and water polo, which are trying to parlay on-field success into funding endowments that let those sports thrive while being basically self-sufficient from a revenue perspective.
IIRC, Ohio State sponsors the most NCAA sports for a public university, not Cal. IIRC, Ohio State sponsors 35 sports, while Cal sponsors 30 sports. Sponsoring 30 sports must be a financial drag on Cal's Athletic Department. Attempting to cut any of those 30 sports, as the Athletics Task Force attempted to do in 2010, would be a PR disaster. That was a shitshow we do not want to repeat and I'm sure that Knowlton is aware of. If Knowlton isn't aware of that debacle, he should be.
Sponsoring 30 sports is an outgrowth of Cal's strategy to meet Title IX requirements by adhering to Prong 3 (Accommodating Interests). Once an institution decides to adhere to Prong 1 (Proportionality), it cannot go back to either Prong 2 or Prong 3. In fact, as I understand it, if an institution chooses to abandon either Prong 2 or Prong 3, it MUST meet Title IX requirement through Prong 1 and stay there.
Many, if not most, FBS programs have elected to adhere to Prong 1. Consequently, most institutions sponsor somewhere between 18 and 21 sports programs, depending on the proportions of males and females enrolled. The FBS football bluebloods sponsor more athletic programs than just about any other FBS institutions. Cal is clearly an outlier: Cal is not an FBS blueblood and it sponsors *30* NCAA sports. Club sports don’t count; they don't have any roster spots that are "counters" which figure in Title IX enforcement or compliance.
To be an FBS program, an institution must sponsor at least 15 sports programs including football, men's basketball, women's basketball, and women's volleyball. The Pac-12 requires its institutions to sponsor two other sports (I can't recall which ones), but I digress.
There is no easy path forward for an institution like Cal. As an outgrowth of the 2010 debacle, Cal has chosen to pursue the endowment of sponsored sports to enhance revenue through endowment income. Hence, the importance of Bear Backers, football revenue, and begging alums for directed giving.
Men’s basketball is a revenue sport because it has the greatest potential to generate revenue after football, even if the revenue generated is small. BTW, something like 9 in 10 FBS programs run an annual deficit. It’s an established pattern brought on by a multitude of factors that can be summed up as follows – sports and celebrity mania.
Yeah, Ohio State apparently got 37 sports (1 more than Stanford). The dream has always been for Cal to be the flagship college program of the state like the case for Ohio State, Texas, Michigan, etc.
History has a big part in why the Cal Athletics department is what it is. Many of Cal's programs predated Football, the NCAA, and long before all the Title IX requirements. Men's Rowing and Rugby intentionally chose at some point in the past to not be governed by the NCAA...which is probably detrimental to its prevalence in college since they are only club sports at most places.
Anyhow, my point was just that survival of all the programs through COVID is not a given. Knowlton choosing to play it too safe with the MBB coaching choice may be saving the bottomline and the non-revenue programs for now.
I will credit Knowlton for not cutting any of Cal's 30 sports - the largest athletics program in the country for a public school (and behind only that of Stanford who recently reversed their decision to cut 11 sports). For comparison, UCLA only has only 24 sports (and none of the two big roster, non-NCAA governed male sports in Rugby and Men's Rowing that also require an equal number of female spots due to Title IX); since this week is the NCAA Men's Swimming and Diving Championship, I will credit a big reason for Cal becoming a national powerhouse to UCLA cutting their men's swim program in 1994. Various Cal non-revenue programs have had varying degrees of successes in trying to fundraise enough money to be financially self-sustaining.
The only way to fiscally save all the sports is to make the money on football. (If the Internet is to be believed), the top basketball programs (Louisville, Duke, Kentucky) *only* makes $20 M in basketball revenue. For comparison, Cal Football already is making around $80+ M in revenue and that number could easily go up to $100+ M with a major bowl appearance.
Sure, you would like to optimize every revenue source, but you also would need to spend money to make money. Clearly, no major Cal donor is forcing Mark Fox out yet, or more importantly, pledging the funds for Cal to competitively hire an exciting new coach.
I'm content to give Fox another year, but my fear is more that he might get an extension for only a marginal improvement of getting Cal to the NIT.
I think this is essentially right. In terms of Athletic Department funding, Cal has (correctly, probably) decided that it is a Football School, in that Football success will drive revenue to make up for the cost drag of sponsoring so many other NCAA teams.
MBB, while it might bring in revenue, is more trying not to _lose_ money than it is to make money. You want success, sure, but more for secondary effects -- prestige, fan/alumni engagement, etc. that eventually loop back into driving revenue long-term. Year-to-year, while making money would be nice, the primary directive is to not get too far into the red.
That's sort of the play for many of the other sports as well, such as rugby and water polo, which are trying to parlay on-field success into funding endowments that let those sports thrive while being basically self-sufficient from a revenue perspective.
Cal rugby pays for itself w/ donations and an endowment.
IIRC, Ohio State sponsors the most NCAA sports for a public university, not Cal. IIRC, Ohio State sponsors 35 sports, while Cal sponsors 30 sports. Sponsoring 30 sports must be a financial drag on Cal's Athletic Department. Attempting to cut any of those 30 sports, as the Athletics Task Force attempted to do in 2010, would be a PR disaster. That was a shitshow we do not want to repeat and I'm sure that Knowlton is aware of. If Knowlton isn't aware of that debacle, he should be.
Sponsoring 30 sports is an outgrowth of Cal's strategy to meet Title IX requirements by adhering to Prong 3 (Accommodating Interests). Once an institution decides to adhere to Prong 1 (Proportionality), it cannot go back to either Prong 2 or Prong 3. In fact, as I understand it, if an institution chooses to abandon either Prong 2 or Prong 3, it MUST meet Title IX requirement through Prong 1 and stay there.
Many, if not most, FBS programs have elected to adhere to Prong 1. Consequently, most institutions sponsor somewhere between 18 and 21 sports programs, depending on the proportions of males and females enrolled. The FBS football bluebloods sponsor more athletic programs than just about any other FBS institutions. Cal is clearly an outlier: Cal is not an FBS blueblood and it sponsors *30* NCAA sports. Club sports don’t count; they don't have any roster spots that are "counters" which figure in Title IX enforcement or compliance.
To be an FBS program, an institution must sponsor at least 15 sports programs including football, men's basketball, women's basketball, and women's volleyball. The Pac-12 requires its institutions to sponsor two other sports (I can't recall which ones), but I digress.
There is no easy path forward for an institution like Cal. As an outgrowth of the 2010 debacle, Cal has chosen to pursue the endowment of sponsored sports to enhance revenue through endowment income. Hence, the importance of Bear Backers, football revenue, and begging alums for directed giving.
Men’s basketball is a revenue sport because it has the greatest potential to generate revenue after football, even if the revenue generated is small. BTW, something like 9 in 10 FBS programs run an annual deficit. It’s an established pattern brought on by a multitude of factors that can be summed up as follows – sports and celebrity mania.
Yeah, Ohio State apparently got 37 sports (1 more than Stanford). The dream has always been for Cal to be the flagship college program of the state like the case for Ohio State, Texas, Michigan, etc.
History has a big part in why the Cal Athletics department is what it is. Many of Cal's programs predated Football, the NCAA, and long before all the Title IX requirements. Men's Rowing and Rugby intentionally chose at some point in the past to not be governed by the NCAA...which is probably detrimental to its prevalence in college since they are only club sports at most places.
Anyhow, my point was just that survival of all the programs through COVID is not a given. Knowlton choosing to play it too safe with the MBB coaching choice may be saving the bottomline and the non-revenue programs for now.
Massive improvement to get to teh NIT!