I am eternally grateful that people like Nick Kranz have both the bandwidth and the interest to follow important but arcane topics such as the finances of the University of California athletic programs. As a long ago graduate (History, ‘81) and present-day anti-recidivist and hay rancher, I contribute what I can, but, in general, throw up my metaphorical hands and try to enjoy the games.
Sadly, several programs, particularly in the more competitive sports elsewhere, are heading toward the fate of Cal (Women's) Lacrosse, where Cal has not had a competitive team since that program was added (it's the second newest program but Beach Volleyball is a top-10 program). Casual Cal fans possibly don't even realize that the program exists.
To me, the Women's Gymnastics and Track and Field Throwing coaches leaving Cal fall into a different category, as those coaches have earned the opportunity to be paid top money in their sport. The more concerning thing is that Cal can't (or won't) offer a competitive wage to possibly lure a more established head coach for the current Softball opening or with the Volleyball vacancy last year. Other than coaching, student athletes in these sports also do get NIL money from other schools.
I also haven’t seen any mention of how Cal and ‘Furd’s exit fee would be any less than what the main reporting says about the ACC’s updated exit fees (165M then eventually ratcheting down to 75M). Previously, wasn’t there some stipulation for the programs receiving partial shares only that would allow them to get out of the ACC for a reduced exit fee that was calculated based on their truncated annual cut?
The ramifications of the House settlement are multiplying.
Who here thinks that Cal football has executed well enough to get 75% of the pie?
I'd rather it be merit-based so WBB, which earned getting a larger share, can enjoy all the benefits of being heavily funded.
One of the main reasons why I'm a Cal sports fan is that I felt like all the sports were given the opportunity to compete. We might not be Texas (hard to write), but number 24 in the final Director's Cup standings is better than some pretty big-time programs like Kentucky :)
It seems now that the chosen few sports are somewhat set in terms of budget (football, MBB, and WBB) and the rest have to duke it out for fund-raising. I hope that the fundraising for the lesser-known sports is robust because the goal is to give students access to as many sports as possible. I don't want us to be like Colorado, which doesn't even have a baseball team.
I hope Write for California can continue to play a role in galvanizing Cal Bears everywhere to fund all the sports so that we have as many chances as possible to beat Stanford!
Ordinarily I would agree with you there, the sports who perform the best should get the most funding. But football is what funds everything else, so they have to get it by default. We just hope the gamble with backing them pays off in the long run.
The PAC-12 commissioner should have gone after Rice & SMU had they done so they might have prevented Cal & Stanford and other schools from leaving the PAC-12. The travel costs are going to be significant for Cal. From an economic standpoint, it's better for Cal Basketball to stay out on the East Coast for 2 weeks at a time rather than fly back and for each game.
But Cal is stuck now because of the grant of rights in the ACC.
How does a school like Duke, for example, that’s a huge hoop program that needs to pay its roster big NIL balance its desire to be good at football too? I can’t see Duke allocating 75% of its NIL bucket to football when they need to pay the basketball players a lot to stay competitive. I guess you could use any of the big SEC or B1G programs as similar examples. Auburn? Alabama? Michigan? Will they just supplement athletes NIL take with soft NIL opportunities through the private donor network to do car commercials or perhaps individual shoe and brand deals? I guess you would choose to play at Duke so you have more exposure and more access to brand sponsorship and not necessarily bc they offer greater revenue share?
Thank you for providing the actual contract that answers a question I've had when I heard of this new revenue sharing agreement from the Clemson/FSU lawsuit. Bottom line is as you stated. Cal, Stanford and SMU get the same net revenue that they agreed to when we joined the conference (for Cal that's 30%)
Regarding the Olympic sports having big challenges with the sports that the other conferences prioritize (softball, baseball, etc) ... I think there is another disadvantage besides NIL, facilities, etc... scholarships...
my understanding is they eliminated scholarship counts for all sports, and replaced them with roster limits. Example (with fake numbers):
Old rule: VB allowed 10 scholarships, and an unlimited roster size (for walk-ons).
- Cal had 20 roster athletes (10 scholarship + 10 walk-ons)
New rule: VB now allows unlimited scholarships, but it's up to the school how many they give, but roster size is now limited to 15.
- Cal has 11 scholarships, and 4 walk-ons (Cal increased scholarships by 1, even though they could have increased it by 5), reducing the roster by 5
In contrast a Big10 team gives 15 scholarships for 15 roster spots.
The reason I used Cal adding 1 VB scholarship in my example under the new rules, is because Lyons basically said they were not planning to fund significant increases in scholarships
We obviously need to drop sports, otherwise we will be at a huge disadvantage, and good players/coaches will continue to move
My assumption from Sebastabear's comments on the other post was the $20M salary distribution would be primarily funded by donors and the university, so independent of conference revenue share.. right? Right???
I think that’s more or less the case right now, but it’s all part of a larger picture where central campus is funding athletics and there’s no guarantee that the political will to do so will last forever
I confess to being a bit ignorant. Does any of endowment money go to the students or is it to pay coaches and other program expenses. I’m assuming the students are provided scholarships as before but I really don’t know.
Well, central campus gives athletics what is referred to in Cal's financial reporting as "Direct Institutional Support," because Cal athletics spends more than it makes in revenue. Institutional support was just over 37 million in the last reporting period of 23/24. It's not necessarily clear where that money comes from but calling it endowment money doesn't strike me as inaccurate.
I am eternally grateful that people like Nick Kranz have both the bandwidth and the interest to follow important but arcane topics such as the finances of the University of California athletic programs. As a long ago graduate (History, ‘81) and present-day anti-recidivist and hay rancher, I contribute what I can, but, in general, throw up my metaphorical hands and try to enjoy the games.
I had to look up at least one word in this post. Well done.
Long live anti-ricidivism!
I like your handle. If you could fit in LaVal’s and that Asian place downtown that sold huge $1 frosty mugs of beer you’d hit for the cycle.
Sadly, several programs, particularly in the more competitive sports elsewhere, are heading toward the fate of Cal (Women's) Lacrosse, where Cal has not had a competitive team since that program was added (it's the second newest program but Beach Volleyball is a top-10 program). Casual Cal fans possibly don't even realize that the program exists.
To me, the Women's Gymnastics and Track and Field Throwing coaches leaving Cal fall into a different category, as those coaches have earned the opportunity to be paid top money in their sport. The more concerning thing is that Cal can't (or won't) offer a competitive wage to possibly lure a more established head coach for the current Softball opening or with the Volleyball vacancy last year. Other than coaching, student athletes in these sports also do get NIL money from other schools.
Agreed that those coaches earned top pay . . . it's just a shame that there's no world where they can get top pay staying at Cal.
I also haven’t seen any mention of how Cal and ‘Furd’s exit fee would be any less than what the main reporting says about the ACC’s updated exit fees (165M then eventually ratcheting down to 75M). Previously, wasn’t there some stipulation for the programs receiving partial shares only that would allow them to get out of the ACC for a reduced exit fee that was calculated based on their truncated annual cut?
Great Q
The ramifications of the House settlement are multiplying.
Who here thinks that Cal football has executed well enough to get 75% of the pie?
I'd rather it be merit-based so WBB, which earned getting a larger share, can enjoy all the benefits of being heavily funded.
One of the main reasons why I'm a Cal sports fan is that I felt like all the sports were given the opportunity to compete. We might not be Texas (hard to write), but number 24 in the final Director's Cup standings is better than some pretty big-time programs like Kentucky :)
It seems now that the chosen few sports are somewhat set in terms of budget (football, MBB, and WBB) and the rest have to duke it out for fund-raising. I hope that the fundraising for the lesser-known sports is robust because the goal is to give students access to as many sports as possible. I don't want us to be like Colorado, which doesn't even have a baseball team.
I hope Write for California can continue to play a role in galvanizing Cal Bears everywhere to fund all the sports so that we have as many chances as possible to beat Stanford!
Ordinarily I would agree with you there, the sports who perform the best should get the most funding. But football is what funds everything else, so they have to get it by default. We just hope the gamble with backing them pays off in the long run.
Football brings in the most money (by far) so it should get the most money. Yes, even when the team stinks it still makes the most money.
The PAC-12 commissioner should have gone after Rice & SMU had they done so they might have prevented Cal & Stanford and other schools from leaving the PAC-12. The travel costs are going to be significant for Cal. From an economic standpoint, it's better for Cal Basketball to stay out on the East Coast for 2 weeks at a time rather than fly back and for each game.
But Cal is stuck now because of the grant of rights in the ACC.
How does a school like Duke, for example, that’s a huge hoop program that needs to pay its roster big NIL balance its desire to be good at football too? I can’t see Duke allocating 75% of its NIL bucket to football when they need to pay the basketball players a lot to stay competitive. I guess you could use any of the big SEC or B1G programs as similar examples. Auburn? Alabama? Michigan? Will they just supplement athletes NIL take with soft NIL opportunities through the private donor network to do car commercials or perhaps individual shoe and brand deals? I guess you would choose to play at Duke so you have more exposure and more access to brand sponsorship and not necessarily bc they offer greater revenue share?
Duke's alumni are probably willing to contribute massive sums to support the basketball program.
So if the cap is $20.5 million for each school, can private donors donate separately towards NIL or another form of payment for students?
I think the answer is yes but each NIL payment must be cleared through a clearinghouse - so it won’t be a free for all that it is today
Thank you for providing the actual contract that answers a question I've had when I heard of this new revenue sharing agreement from the Clemson/FSU lawsuit. Bottom line is as you stated. Cal, Stanford and SMU get the same net revenue that they agreed to when we joined the conference (for Cal that's 30%)
Regarding the Olympic sports having big challenges with the sports that the other conferences prioritize (softball, baseball, etc) ... I think there is another disadvantage besides NIL, facilities, etc... scholarships...
my understanding is they eliminated scholarship counts for all sports, and replaced them with roster limits. Example (with fake numbers):
Old rule: VB allowed 10 scholarships, and an unlimited roster size (for walk-ons).
- Cal had 20 roster athletes (10 scholarship + 10 walk-ons)
New rule: VB now allows unlimited scholarships, but it's up to the school how many they give, but roster size is now limited to 15.
- Cal has 11 scholarships, and 4 walk-ons (Cal increased scholarships by 1, even though they could have increased it by 5), reducing the roster by 5
In contrast a Big10 team gives 15 scholarships for 15 roster spots.
The reason I used Cal adding 1 VB scholarship in my example under the new rules, is because Lyons basically said they were not planning to fund significant increases in scholarships
We obviously need to drop sports, otherwise we will be at a huge disadvantage, and good players/coaches will continue to move
Unless we find ways to continue endowing non revenue generating sports, yes those sports will likely need to be cut
Isn’t SMU getting zero shares?
Believe so but SMU has amazing fundraising, they raise $100 million in 7 days.
My assumption from Sebastabear's comments on the other post was the $20M salary distribution would be primarily funded by donors and the university, so independent of conference revenue share.. right? Right???
I think that’s more or less the case right now, but it’s all part of a larger picture where central campus is funding athletics and there’s no guarantee that the political will to do so will last forever
Money is fungible so the more we get from the conference, the more we have all funding needs, including wrt to the $20.5
I confess to being a bit ignorant. Does any of endowment money go to the students or is it to pay coaches and other program expenses. I’m assuming the students are provided scholarships as before but I really don’t know.
Well, central campus gives athletics what is referred to in Cal's financial reporting as "Direct Institutional Support," because Cal athletics spends more than it makes in revenue. Institutional support was just over 37 million in the last reporting period of 23/24. It's not necessarily clear where that money comes from but calling it endowment money doesn't strike me as inaccurate.
It’s the whole thing: pay for coaches, travel, etc.