Might get her a few more votes
Maybe Meg Whitman could write them a check.
Might get her a few more votes
Might get her a few more votes
quote:Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
cheapseats,
The rule says that the player is not eligible if the transfer occurs after the conclusion of the first term. The excerpt of a letter that you quoted says the same thing.
I think that means that if the player transfers now (which is before the conclusion of the first term), he would be eligible in the spring, assuming academics are in order.
3fingered - I understand what you are saying now, you are saying if they do not complete the fall semester at Cal (i.e. drop their fall classes at Cal) AND if they enroll for fall 2010 at a new DI that might be a way to be able to play elsewhere at a new DI in the spring. I realize universities in California start fall classes later in September than they do in other parts of the country so that may be an option (most schools in the south begin in August). If a Cal player is thinking of going that route I would recommend they call the NCAA to clarify the rule. I would think the best option at this time would be stay the course and finish the spring with their current Cal team while looking for a new baseball home for fall of 2011.
Also, like you mentioned earlier there may be conference rules in place that would prevent them from competing this spring if they transfered within the conference.
Conclusions from the Knight Commission report issued in June of 2010:
"It is time for colleges and universities to resist the never-ending pressure to increase spending on intercollegiate athletics. Even as this report goes to press, high-profile athletic conferences are expanding their memberships in an effort to boost television market share and revenues they hope will follow. Such changes will likely make it harder than ever for the vast majority of colleges to keep up with continued escalation in spending on coaches’ salaries, facilities, and other trappings of athletic prestige.
The predictable result: increased subsidy of athletics programs at the cost of academic programs, higher mandatory athletics fees for all students at many institutions, and a reduction in sports offerings—including dropping of teams that are not generating revenues. Such outcomes are indefensible for an enterprise that exists for the benefit of student participants and should serve to strengthen the academic mission of the university.
We recognize the value of intercollegiate athletics, including “big-time” college sports, to student-athletes and to their universities. But to maintain the health of the system we have built over the past 150 years, we believe that a renewed commitment to sustained financial reform is necessary. The reforms outlined in this report provide a foundation upon which to build. We look forward to helping individual institutions, their conferences, and the NCAA make this commitment. Never before have the stakes been so high."
As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, Cal is not, by an means, an isolated financial deficit situation.
Pressures that brought these changes are occurring in many places, one of the most prominent being within the Arizona Board of Trustees. One of their Board members was also a member and supporter of the Knight Commission analysis.
O'44, as usual, is exactly on point in directing the discussion toward future implications for other schools.
Broad based support for increasing student fees and General fund support for expanding AD deficits is dwindling rapidly. It may just have hit Cal first.
It does not look like Cal will be saved.
If student fees and general fund support cannot continue to be increased to underwrite the ever increasing deficits being experienced by the vast majority of Universities and Colleges, baseball as a sport may exist only in the BCS type top football/basketball revenue schools.
With that said, even if the revenues existed, can there be any possible justification for spending $92,000 per year per athlete as is reported for Cal women's basketball?
"It is time for colleges and universities to resist the never-ending pressure to increase spending on intercollegiate athletics. Even as this report goes to press, high-profile athletic conferences are expanding their memberships in an effort to boost television market share and revenues they hope will follow. Such changes will likely make it harder than ever for the vast majority of colleges to keep up with continued escalation in spending on coaches’ salaries, facilities, and other trappings of athletic prestige.
The predictable result: increased subsidy of athletics programs at the cost of academic programs, higher mandatory athletics fees for all students at many institutions, and a reduction in sports offerings—including dropping of teams that are not generating revenues. Such outcomes are indefensible for an enterprise that exists for the benefit of student participants and should serve to strengthen the academic mission of the university.
We recognize the value of intercollegiate athletics, including “big-time” college sports, to student-athletes and to their universities. But to maintain the health of the system we have built over the past 150 years, we believe that a renewed commitment to sustained financial reform is necessary. The reforms outlined in this report provide a foundation upon which to build. We look forward to helping individual institutions, their conferences, and the NCAA make this commitment. Never before have the stakes been so high."
As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, Cal is not, by an means, an isolated financial deficit situation.
Pressures that brought these changes are occurring in many places, one of the most prominent being within the Arizona Board of Trustees. One of their Board members was also a member and supporter of the Knight Commission analysis.
O'44, as usual, is exactly on point in directing the discussion toward future implications for other schools.
Broad based support for increasing student fees and General fund support for expanding AD deficits is dwindling rapidly. It may just have hit Cal first.
It does not look like Cal will be saved.
If student fees and general fund support cannot continue to be increased to underwrite the ever increasing deficits being experienced by the vast majority of Universities and Colleges, baseball as a sport may exist only in the BCS type top football/basketball revenue schools.
With that said, even if the revenues existed, can there be any possible justification for spending $92,000 per year per athlete as is reported for Cal women's basketball?
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
..... even if the revenues existed, can there be any possible justification for spending $92,000 per year per athlete as is reported for Cal women's basketball?
Well, let's think about expenses from a more global view. Apparently Cal spent $70 million last year on athletics, and that was a typical year.
I don't know how many athletes Cal has, but lets assume 25 teams, and 30 players per team on average. Sure, football and rugby have much more, but basketball, golf, tennis, etc have less. $70M divided by 750 is around $90,000 per player. Perhaps there are really more players per team and the average cost is only $50,000 per player, but it is still a large number. Given these average costs per player, the revenue production (tickets, concessions, and the hard to estimate impact on athletic donors and other donors, etc.) for each sport probably does need to be considered.
The article says that recently the baseball team had total expenses of about $300,000 or about $9000 per player. There is no way that all the real costs have been included in that number. It obviously doesn't include scholarships (about $300,000). A big ticket item is the maintenance of Evans Field-- a facility which seems to have no use besides Cal baseball. By contrast, basketball facilities typically do have multiple uses.
There very likely is a cost disparity among sports. But it may not be so easy to determine the actual (or apportioned) costs for each sport. I suspect that the difference are smaller than we might think. For example, I doubt that each sport explicitly accounts for the costs associated with tutors, academic counselors, compliance work, strength coaches and weight rooms.
Over the last two summers, I've visited a variety of D1 schools. Frankly I was staggered by the scope and expense of facilities which are designated for use by athletes only. As a parent whose sons may use these facilities, they look nice. Viewed from the perspective of a taxpayer, I'm not so pleased.
If football were to reduce its scholarships from 85 to, say, 50, the problems at places like Cal would be solved and football would still generate millions, including at Cal (which could have unilaterally reduced its own football scholarships). This would have major impact on Title IX compliance and reverse the upward pressure on scholarships for so many women's sports. There are lots of ways to reduce costs without eliminating baseball. It is clear that the broader university community at Cal simply does not value baseball.
Taking away 35 football scholarships would save less than $1 million.
The problem at Cal is a $13M deficit, which they hope to reduce to $5M, through cuts and increased revenue from the PAC-10 realignment.
I quite agree that Cal values football more than baseball. So does all of the collegiate sports fan base.
The problem at Cal is a $13M deficit, which they hope to reduce to $5M, through cuts and increased revenue from the PAC-10 realignment.
I quite agree that Cal values football more than baseball. So does all of the collegiate sports fan base.
jemaz,
You keep saying Cal.
Check in AZ. There are members of the Board of Trustees in your State who are raising the exact same funding issues for sports/coaching salaries and advancing the argument they need to stop.
This is not a Cal issue. Cal is just one example of the issue in all public universities except perhaps Ohio State according to most of the current information.
3FG, one aspect of baseball is the players often times do a substantial portion of the field maintenance. I also know that players on work study do field maintenance/grass cutting and the like for some schools.
I doubt they do all and clearly water and those types of costs need to be considered.
Whether the number if $92,000 or $50,000, as these types of numbers become more public, if they do, they become a very ripe source for potential discussion items/debate about the costs of DI intercollegiate athletics.
I could guess, as you do, that many will say "great" for football and basketball.
In times of financial downturns contrasted with taxpayer funding, those numbers might cause many taxpayers quite a bit of angst, I would think.
You keep saying Cal.
Check in AZ. There are members of the Board of Trustees in your State who are raising the exact same funding issues for sports/coaching salaries and advancing the argument they need to stop.
This is not a Cal issue. Cal is just one example of the issue in all public universities except perhaps Ohio State according to most of the current information.
3FG, one aspect of baseball is the players often times do a substantial portion of the field maintenance. I also know that players on work study do field maintenance/grass cutting and the like for some schools.
I doubt they do all and clearly water and those types of costs need to be considered.
Whether the number if $92,000 or $50,000, as these types of numbers become more public, if they do, they become a very ripe source for potential discussion items/debate about the costs of DI intercollegiate athletics.
I could guess, as you do, that many will say "great" for football and basketball.
In times of financial downturns contrasted with taxpayer funding, those numbers might cause many taxpayers quite a bit of angst, I would think.
Good discussion. BTW, Kendall Rogers has written an article tying the action to BCS football and football playoffs.
BCS Claims Unlikely Vicitim
BCS Claims Unlikely Vicitim
From an Aaron Fitt "tweet."
NCAA's Stacey Osburn corrected herself. Rule 14.5.5.5 says players who transfer at midyear—even if program will be cut—must sit out spring.
Osburn also e-mailed: "That said, a waiver of this rule is still an option and each request is reviewed individually."
NCAA's Stacey Osburn corrected herself. Rule 14.5.5.5 says players who transfer at midyear—even if program will be cut—must sit out spring.
Osburn also e-mailed: "That said, a waiver of this rule is still an option and each request is reviewed individually."
infield:
Of course I am saying Cal. Cal is the school that just dropped baseball. What other school would I mention in this conversation? I can tell you that neither Arizona nor Arizona State will be dropping baseball ever. Perhaps other sports will be dropped -- and they have been dropped in the past -- but not baseball. Both schools are strongly committed to baseball. I am not sure of your fixation on Arizona -- or anywhere else for that matter -- but it is Cal that has elected to take this path when many other paths were available. As I said, it is clear that at the University of California, baseball is not a priority.
If you somehow want to take a shot at my youngest son, who proudly chose to honor his commitment to ASU rather than sign with the White Sox, or at me, you are missing the mark.
Of course I am saying Cal. Cal is the school that just dropped baseball. What other school would I mention in this conversation? I can tell you that neither Arizona nor Arizona State will be dropping baseball ever. Perhaps other sports will be dropped -- and they have been dropped in the past -- but not baseball. Both schools are strongly committed to baseball. I am not sure of your fixation on Arizona -- or anywhere else for that matter -- but it is Cal that has elected to take this path when many other paths were available. As I said, it is clear that at the University of California, baseball is not a priority.
If you somehow want to take a shot at my youngest son, who proudly chose to honor his commitment to ASU rather than sign with the White Sox, or at me, you are missing the mark.
quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:
From an Aaron Fitt "tweet."
NCAA's Stacey Osburn corrected herself. Rule 14.5.5.5 says players who transfer at midyear—even if program will be cut—must sit out spring.
Osburn also e-mailed: "That said, a waiver of this rule is still an option and each request is reviewed individually."
justbaseball - thanks for posting the tweets....
Interesting..... why would they grant a waiver for something their rules explicitly state you can't do? Why have rules if you are not applying them consistently?
The NCAA makes my head hurt.....
I don't know what you mean by taking a shot at your son. I don't know anything about your son. I have never in the past and will never in the future take a shot at anyone's son.
I made comments that the same issues are being discussed in AZ. I didn't say they would arrive at the same conclusion but did provide the report conclusions, supported by some members of your Board, that the cutting sports is the only logical result if deficits continue.
If you think baseball is exempt in Az. that is your choice and I certainly respect your strongly held views.
Looks like a lot involved in the Cal program held the same views until yesterday.
I made comments that the same issues are being discussed in AZ. I didn't say they would arrive at the same conclusion but did provide the report conclusions, supported by some members of your Board, that the cutting sports is the only logical result if deficits continue.
If you think baseball is exempt in Az. that is your choice and I certainly respect your strongly held views.
Looks like a lot involved in the Cal program held the same views until yesterday.
quote:Originally posted by jemaz:
If you somehow want to take a shot at my youngest son, who proudly chose to honor his commitment to ASU rather than sign with the White Sox, or at me, you are missing the mark.
Apprehensive to intrude, but I didn't see any shots taken.
But I do think its a little naive to think "it will never happen here." A year ago, I would have said that about Cal. So I don't know how to predict the future on any of this.
quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:quote:Originally posted by jemaz:
If you somehow want to take a shot at my youngest son, who proudly chose to honor his commitment to ASU rather than sign with the White Sox, or at me, you are missing the mark.
Apprehensive to intrude, but I didn't see any shots taken.
But I do think its a little naive to think "it will never happen here." A year ago, I would have said that about Cal. So I don't know how to predict the future on any of this.
To add a little levity to the situation, I "doubt" Arizona State will be folding their baseball team any time soon
That said, the Cal situation has obviously shocked lots of people - especially from the west coast. We've had Duquesne and Northern Iowa threads here that have essentially dealt with the same issue. It seems now that the issue has more visibility.
quote:Originally posted by cheapseats:quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:
From an Aaron Fitt "tweet."
NCAA's Stacey Osburn corrected herself. Rule 14.5.5.5 says players who transfer at midyear—even if program will be cut—must sit out spring.
Osburn also e-mailed: "That said, a waiver of this rule is still an option and each request is reviewed individually."
Interesting..... why would they grant a waiver for something their rules explicitly state you can't do? Why have rules if you are not applying them consistently?
The NCAA makes my head hurt.....
I'm certainly no expert on NCAA transfer rules in this sad situation, but my understanding is very clearly that the players will have eligibility to play baseball this spring, even if they transfer at the end of the semester to another school. Since the announcement yesterday afternoon, I've spoken with 3 different D1 coaches here in nothern CA, and all have indicated that these Cal players will be able to play this spring, whether at Cal or another school. They've all been doing their homework, as a bunch of them are courting the Cal players in an effort to get them to move to their schools. Some of the coaches are doing this in an honorable way and adhering to NCAA rules, contacting Coach Esquer or his assistants, and going through them to get a consent to speak with the student-athlete, while others are going directly to the player in an effort to get him to leave and join their program. Each of the Cal players I have coached prior to going there has been contacted by at least one school in the past 24 hours expressing interest.
I have to also take a moment to say that I think the Cal coaches are being as great as they can be to the players and handling this very well so far. I spoke with one of the assistant coaches yesterday, a few hours after the announcement, and he told me their #1 concern is the best interest of each individual player, regardless if that means they keep the player or lose him today. I was told that they will be counseling each player, and will be helping those who choose to leave find the best fit possible for each of them. He told me that whatever players want to leave will get as much help with the decision and transfer assistance as possible, and that they're really encouraging each player is to take his time to make a well thought out and fully researched decision, whatever it may end up being. He said they'll play in the spring with whoever they have, and worry about the future when it gets here.
06catcherdad - I hear what you are saying but transferring mid-year to another DI and being able to play in the spring does not follow the NCAA rules as currently written. Fortunately this scenario does not come up very often so the coaches that you have mentioned may not have experience with this issue to have all the information at this early point in the process or perhaps they are coaches at programs that are not DI. From the tweets posted above we can see that the NCAA put information out there that was not accurate then retracted the information to clarify that mid-year transfers for baseball are not allowed unless a waiver is granted. Do they plan to "rubber stamp" the waivers? Yes, that is possible but following the rules that are currently in place - mid-year transfers to play at a DI in the spring are not allowed.
These young men and their families need to get the mid-year exemption waiver documented in writing directly from the NCAA if they are receiving a waiver on this rule. I think it is still early for Cal with lots of information going around, I would not go with the transfer/play in the spring assumption unless I received this information in writing directly from the NCAA.
These young men and their families need to get the mid-year exemption waiver documented in writing directly from the NCAA if they are receiving a waiver on this rule. I think it is still early for Cal with lots of information going around, I would not go with the transfer/play in the spring assumption unless I received this information in writing directly from the NCAA.
O6catcherdad,
Say a bunch of guys bail...does that create walk-on opportunities for others?
Say a bunch of guys bail...does that create walk-on opportunities for others?
quote:Originally posted by iheartbb:
O6catcherdad,
Say a bunch of guys bail...does that create walk-on opportunities for others?
Great question. I think it might. For those players who think they'll see significant playing time this year at Cal, I think it would be hard to turn down the opportunity to play in the PAC 10 this year and then take your chances with transfer next year. I understand if some kids feel like they need to do something now however.
infield:
Thanks for looking out after my interests. My mistake if I saw a shot -- several actually, in more than one post. However, it is clear that you simply don't understand the baseball culture at Arizona State University, where the program probably actually makes some money, or in this state. If you want to believe that attitudes toward baseball are similar at California and at ASU, that is your perogative; I just don't see it. Nor would hardly anyone else on the planet.
In fact, I would venture this: If a member of the Arizona Board of Regents, which oversees ASU, UofA and NAU, seriously proposed dropping baseball at ASU or UofA, they would not be a member of that board for very long.
What I am most amazed at though is how a conversation on Cal dropping baseball somehow migrates to Arizona and Arizona State, where the possibility has never been mentioned or considered, even when the elimination of other sports was proposed (but not carried out because of the private funding that was brought forth). With a son in law school at USD and a daughter in graduate school at USC, I have an appreciation and respect for the culture and approach at at least two California schools. I can tell you that culture is very, very different from what is found here; at Cal, the culture has gone over the edge -- and in my view not in a good way.
Thanks for looking out after my interests. My mistake if I saw a shot -- several actually, in more than one post. However, it is clear that you simply don't understand the baseball culture at Arizona State University, where the program probably actually makes some money, or in this state. If you want to believe that attitudes toward baseball are similar at California and at ASU, that is your perogative; I just don't see it. Nor would hardly anyone else on the planet.
In fact, I would venture this: If a member of the Arizona Board of Regents, which oversees ASU, UofA and NAU, seriously proposed dropping baseball at ASU or UofA, they would not be a member of that board for very long.
What I am most amazed at though is how a conversation on Cal dropping baseball somehow migrates to Arizona and Arizona State, where the possibility has never been mentioned or considered, even when the elimination of other sports was proposed (but not carried out because of the private funding that was brought forth). With a son in law school at USD and a daughter in graduate school at USC, I have an appreciation and respect for the culture and approach at at least two California schools. I can tell you that culture is very, very different from what is found here; at Cal, the culture has gone over the edge -- and in my view not in a good way.
I agree, I don't see the need for panic if you are already on the team. You're right CD, it is PAC-10 baseball, why not finish it out, these coaches are going to help you find a place to play, sitting out is not such a teriible thing, a player may be able to get ahead, or do better academically, and in some cases "get bigger and stronger" with out the grind.
I think the 2011 commits are the ones who need some help immediately.
I think the 2011 commits are the ones who need some help immediately.
I know this is very unfortunate for the 2011's and they probably feel like they have been punched in the gut but luckily the 2011 commits still have a lot of time to find a new program.
quote:I just don't see it. Nor would hardly anyone else on the planet.
I have not limited this to AZ, but used what is happening with the Knight Commission, and with the recent efforts and comments of Senator Deconcini from the AZ. Board of Trustees to illustrate the issue of whether Cal is isolated and a group of nut cases as you would like to classify them or whether the nut cases will end up being the 1st of many.
I don't know the answer and if you took the use of the AZ university system example as a "slight" or personal attack, especially on your son, that was not the intent, goal or effort.
This is an important discussion item, in my view. Calling folks "nut cases" and wacky and the like makes good message board fodder but it tends to miss the message.
As I posted earlier, the recommendations of the Knight Commission, issued in June of 2010 are almost directly on point with this discussion. Whether it is the UC system, the Texas system, the University of Houston, the University of Cincinnatti, or the Arizona university system,athletic department cost overruns and financial deficits in public universities are huge. An increasingly vocal group are saying there need to be changes or programs will be eliminated. Title IX is a part of this too.
The basic question is whether taxpayers and student fees will be permitted to be increased and used to fund ever increasing deficits in athletic departments of public universities.
When/if the answer is no, I tend to side with 3FG. The only programs protected are football and basketball. If the answer is no and Title IX is in play, I question if any program other than those mandated by the Pac10 can feel secure.
Of course if students and taxpayers continue to fund the AD deficit, while professors are fired, and allocations to education cut or frozen, it is a non-issue.
In my view, USD and USC are largely irrelevant here being private universities without taxpayer subsidy.
The upper classmen are screwed by this. Its very difficult for any student who is a junior or senior to transfer to another school and be able to graduate on time. Many schools require complettion of 60 (?) units (smemster) in order to graduate. Thus if Junior plays at cal in the spring or transfer, say to USC, he probebely won't be able to graduate on time. Same deal with any senior that transfers for the spring.
Cal would have done everyone but yhr seniors a favor by making this decision in august when players could transfer to any school in the fall, not just those on the quarter system, of course Cal probebely wouldn't be able to field remotely competitive teams in these sports if they had treated the students right.
Cal would have done everyone but yhr seniors a favor by making this decision in august when players could transfer to any school in the fall, not just those on the quarter system, of course Cal probebely wouldn't be able to field remotely competitive teams in these sports if they had treated the students right.
quote:Knight Commission
OK...forgive my ignorance and I know you guys have in other threads
This Knight Commission....who are they and why do they hold so much clout? I was just curious.
quote:Originally posted by CollegeParentNoMore:
The upper classmen are screwed by this. Its very difficult for any student who is a junior or senior to transfer to another school and be able to graduate on time. Many schools require complettion of 60 (?) units (smemster) in order to graduate. Thus if Junior plays at cal in the spring or transfer, say to USC, he probebely won't be able to graduate on time. Same deal with any senior that transfers for the spring.
Cal would have done everyone but yhr seniors a favor by making this decision in august when players could transfer to any school in the fall, not just those on the quarter system, of course Cal probebely wouldn't be able to field remotely competitive teams in these sports if they had treated the students right.
The way I look at it why would seniors need to transfer? They will have Pac-10 DI baseball at Cal this spring. I agree, Juniors are in the worst position due to the reasons you listed above.
I don't know that they do have "so much" clout.
What they do is potentially provide visibility on issues, with the visibility coming from a place of potentially increasing media visibility. Through their reports, they are able to provide a focus on what may be wrong with the NCAA and college athletics. They seem to describe it as a level of "transparency."
Where the Knight reports may have "clout" is with/on members of the Board of Trustees and their potentially ever increasing accountability as Board members.
You can make your own judgments.
Here is the link..which you already found I am sure:
http://www.knightcommission.or...ticle&id=2&Itemid=74
What they do is potentially provide visibility on issues, with the visibility coming from a place of potentially increasing media visibility. Through their reports, they are able to provide a focus on what may be wrong with the NCAA and college athletics. They seem to describe it as a level of "transparency."
Where the Knight reports may have "clout" is with/on members of the Board of Trustees and their potentially ever increasing accountability as Board members.
You can make your own judgments.
Here is the link..which you already found I am sure:
http://www.knightcommission.or...ticle&id=2&Itemid=74
quote:I don't find it sad at all. If the school is not committed, then the sport ought not to exist there. If there is a groundswell and this is reversed, then it will be better as a result than it is today. Cal is a wacky place anyway
infield:
Of course I am saying Cal. Cal is the school that just dropped baseball. What other school would I mention in this conversation? I can tell you that neither Arizona nor Arizona State will be dropping baseball ever. Perhaps other sports will be dropped -- and they have been dropped in the past -- but not baseball. Both schools are strongly committed to baseball. I am not sure of your fixation on Arizona -- or anywhere else for that matter -- but it is Cal that has elected to take this path when many other paths were available. As I said, it is clear that at the University of California, baseball is not a priority.
If you somehow want to take a shot at my youngest son, who proudly chose to honor his commitment to ASU rather than sign with the White Sox, or at me, you are missing the mark.
Jemaz, yesterday you don't find the situation sad at all and today you think Infield Dad is taking a shot at your ASU son or at you. You are wrong on both counts.
quote:Originally posted by cheapseats:
06catcherdad - I hear what you are saying but transferring mid-year to another DI and being able to play in the spring does not follow the NCAA rules as currently written. I have been dealing with the NCAA on a similar issue that also falls under the discontinued/nonsponsored sport exception and they have gone out of their way to mention the no mid-year transfer then play rule for DI baseball each time I have corresponded with them via phone or letter. Fortunately this scenario does not come up very often so the coaches that you have mentioned may not have experience with this issue to have all the information at this early point in the process or perhaps they are coaches at programs that are not DI. From the tweets posted above we can see that the NCAA put information out there that was not accurate then retracted the information to clarify that mid-year transfers for baseball are not allowed unless a waiver is granted. Do they plan to "rubber stamp" the waivers? Yes, that is possible but following the rules that are currently in place - mid-year transfers to play at a DI in the spring are not allowed.
These young men and their families need to get the mid-year exemption waiver documented in writing directly from the NCAA if they are receiving a waiver on this rule. I think it is still early for Cal with lots of information going around, I would not go with the transfer/play in the spring assumption unless I received this information in writing directly from the NCAA.
"You make a good point, but I've been told (and I assume these guys know what they're talking about since it is their job to be informed on this) is that in Cal's situation, all of the players will be able to play. That didn't come from coaches who aren't in D1, but rather from coaches in the Pac-10, WCC and WAC. They all told me they're already looked into it, and that they were told the players will be allowed to play elsewhere, even if it is this year. The one big pothole to watch out for, IMO, is the Jr. College coaches who are wooing these players. I've already heard of a few telling the players that they'll be draft eligible right away (which is true) and that after 1 year in juco they'll be allowed back into D1 baseball (which is not true). I guess as in all other walks of life, the integrity and ethics from one coach to another vary wildly with some doing it responsibly, and others skirting every rule they think they can get around".
Well, in the end it looks like cheapseats is probably going to be correct. I was talking with someone involved with the program today, and he told me that they've concluded it is unlikely that any players requesting waivers for this year will have them granted. They thought they may be able to get them, but have learned it is unlikely. In many ways, I think this is a good thing. The players will have added reason to stay around, and play one last season of Cal Golden Bears baseball. While that is going on, perhaps the program will be saved and they can stay on. If the program does indeed go, then they'll have options for next year without having to sit out a year. In the end, it may not be the worst situation to be in. While it may not help the upperclassmen, there is a lot of interest in the underclassmen should be program go the way of the dinosaurs. I sure hope that doesn't happen, though.
If there's one team I'm hoping to see in Omaha next June, it is CAL!
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
I don't know that they do have "so much" clout.
What they do is potentially provide visibility on issues, with the visibility coming from a place of potentially increasing media visibility. Through their reports, they are able to provide a focus on what may be wrong with the NCAA and college athletics. They seem to describe it as a level of "transparency."
Where the Knight reports may have "clout" is with/on members of the Board of Trustees and their potentially ever increasing accountability as Board members.
You can make your own judgments.
Here is the link..which you already found I am sure:
http://www.knightcommission.or...ticle&id=2&Itemid=74
Appreciate it infielddad. I did find their site but I didn't have the time to dive in to try and figure out who they are and how they fit in with all of this.
Bottom line, it still sucks for Cal and to your point, I am sure other schools will follow their lead.
06catherdad - time will tell but as I read the tweet and read the rules a mid-year DI transfer will not be allowed to play in the spring without a waiver.
jemaz,
Baseball has been at the University of California Berkeley since 1892, baseball, not the date the university was established. Baseball has been appreciated there for a long, long time therefore, it qualifies as a 'priority'.
Never say never. ASU has been in plenty of trouble the past couple of years, and the State of Arizona has it's own issues....money always comes into play.
What do you see as the cultural differences between the schools your children chose to pursue their higher education ( USD and USC both California universities) and the Universities in Arizona?
Are you speaking of the student culture or the culture of the Regents?
Why so hostile? The nuts you refer to, or the 'over the edge' people are some of the brightest and most gifted academic and athletic students in the world.
Baseball has been at the University of California Berkeley since 1892, baseball, not the date the university was established. Baseball has been appreciated there for a long, long time therefore, it qualifies as a 'priority'.
Never say never. ASU has been in plenty of trouble the past couple of years, and the State of Arizona has it's own issues....money always comes into play.
What do you see as the cultural differences between the schools your children chose to pursue their higher education ( USD and USC both California universities) and the Universities in Arizona?
Are you speaking of the student culture or the culture of the Regents?
Why so hostile? The nuts you refer to, or the 'over the edge' people are some of the brightest and most gifted academic and athletic students in the world.
heart:
If baseball was a priority at Cal, that is no longer the case. If is were, baseball would not have been dropped. As for these "bright" people, I absolutely believe they made a very stupid and unneccesary decision. So, in this case, they were not very bright at all. There is no hostility in that, just an observation.
In terms of culture differences, look at the immigration bill recently passed in AZ. Whether it involves students or regents, definitely the regents.
And infield dad, you are quoting Dennis DeConcini. Fortuntately he ceased being relevant in Arizona more than 15 years ago.
If baseball was a priority at Cal, that is no longer the case. If is were, baseball would not have been dropped. As for these "bright" people, I absolutely believe they made a very stupid and unneccesary decision. So, in this case, they were not very bright at all. There is no hostility in that, just an observation.
In terms of culture differences, look at the immigration bill recently passed in AZ. Whether it involves students or regents, definitely the regents.
And infield dad, you are quoting Dennis DeConcini. Fortuntately he ceased being relevant in Arizona more than 15 years ago.
Great, you have nothing to worry about except whatever he might be able to do in his status as a member of the Board of Trustees.
Let me go at this a different way.
I love college athletics. Believe in it 200%. Been to Cal, Stanford, Santa Clara, USF, Davis, and many others etc. Attend football, basketball, baseball.
Our son hopes to become a Division I head coach some day.
I read the total cost to support and sustain one athlete at a Division I public university is anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. It is escalating.
As passionate as I am about the benefits of college athletics, I sit and question the economics and wisdom of those numbers and especially question hte wisdom or validity of underwriting and/or subsidizing those costs with tax payer funds/general University funds.
Add to that the cost control measures impacting the education side, and I actually am much more open to the idea this system cannot be allowed/permitted to exist, supported by public taxes.
My guess is I am in the minority when it comes to my support of college athletics. My further guess is I am in a much smaller minority when it comes to choosing baseball over any other college sport in terms of enjoyment and support.
I don't like those odds for most any baseball program when we include cost per athlete and title IX implications with tax payer money to subsidize huge deficits.
Let me go at this a different way.
I love college athletics. Believe in it 200%. Been to Cal, Stanford, Santa Clara, USF, Davis, and many others etc. Attend football, basketball, baseball.
Our son hopes to become a Division I head coach some day.
I read the total cost to support and sustain one athlete at a Division I public university is anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. It is escalating.
As passionate as I am about the benefits of college athletics, I sit and question the economics and wisdom of those numbers and especially question hte wisdom or validity of underwriting and/or subsidizing those costs with tax payer funds/general University funds.
Add to that the cost control measures impacting the education side, and I actually am much more open to the idea this system cannot be allowed/permitted to exist, supported by public taxes.
My guess is I am in the minority when it comes to my support of college athletics. My further guess is I am in a much smaller minority when it comes to choosing baseball over any other college sport in terms of enjoyment and support.
I don't like those odds for most any baseball program when we include cost per athlete and title IX implications with tax payer money to subsidize huge deficits.
I think it goes without saying how devastated everyone is about Cal cutting their bb program but now from a purely selfish standpoint.....now the players will be allowed to transfer into a college and play this next spring?????
So the programs that are recruiting the Cal players are just going to cut some of their established players to make room for the new players?
I also think our kids that play college baseball should take time to really appreciate the opportunity they are getting to play college sports. Yes they work their butts off but it is still a privilege to be able to play college sports.
So the programs that are recruiting the Cal players are just going to cut some of their established players to make room for the new players?
I also think our kids that play college baseball should take time to really appreciate the opportunity they are getting to play college sports. Yes they work their butts off but it is still a privilege to be able to play college sports.
infield dad:
I actually agree with you in regard to tax dollars. I also believe a strong athletic "program" is capable of going out and raising most of the funds it needs on its own. My alma mater, Virginia Tech, takes this path. There is a student fee that goes toward athletics, but it is very small -- less than 2 percent of the budget. In return, the students get tickets to the events and other things. I know of virtually none that object to this. I also know that a substantial number of alumni contribute to the athletic program. What I described is the case with many/most of the schools in the ACC.
If you took away all of the funds that come from taxpayers/students, the program would continue to flourish. This is because of the commitment the entire community has to the program. VT has nowhere near 24 sports, which is part of the program at Cal. The other part might be poor fiscal management. VT has revenues that I believe to be similar to the revenues at Cal. But VT's athletic program turns a profit and contributes back to the general education fund. It this can take place at VT, a place far less sophisticated than Cal, then I absolutely don't see why it can't happen at Cal, except for the missing commitment.
And to clarify, I do empathize with the athletes and coaches (which I have stated in this thread). I have no similar feelings toward those with the lack of commitment and view them, instead, with great disdain. I would imagine that there is incredible mismanagement taking place in the Cal athletic program and that the baseball program is now suffering the consequences.
I also look at the Pac 10, one of the premier conferences in the nation, and cannot believe the a California-based member of the Pac 10 would even consider dropping the premier spring sport that has been played at the school for so long. If it were up to me, I would expel Cal from the conference over this issue (I know it is not up to me and understand that the other members would never consider such a move). Nonetheless, it is humiliating to the league and the school and cannot be easily corrected or undone. But, a look at the lack of facilities at Cal and the poor conditions of those that exist, tell a very clear story.
I think your view of the broader state of college athletics in America, infield dad, is to a degree distorted and mostly inaccurate. Time will tell which one of us is right. For the sake of your son and many, many others, I hope it is me.
I actually agree with you in regard to tax dollars. I also believe a strong athletic "program" is capable of going out and raising most of the funds it needs on its own. My alma mater, Virginia Tech, takes this path. There is a student fee that goes toward athletics, but it is very small -- less than 2 percent of the budget. In return, the students get tickets to the events and other things. I know of virtually none that object to this. I also know that a substantial number of alumni contribute to the athletic program. What I described is the case with many/most of the schools in the ACC.
If you took away all of the funds that come from taxpayers/students, the program would continue to flourish. This is because of the commitment the entire community has to the program. VT has nowhere near 24 sports, which is part of the program at Cal. The other part might be poor fiscal management. VT has revenues that I believe to be similar to the revenues at Cal. But VT's athletic program turns a profit and contributes back to the general education fund. It this can take place at VT, a place far less sophisticated than Cal, then I absolutely don't see why it can't happen at Cal, except for the missing commitment.
And to clarify, I do empathize with the athletes and coaches (which I have stated in this thread). I have no similar feelings toward those with the lack of commitment and view them, instead, with great disdain. I would imagine that there is incredible mismanagement taking place in the Cal athletic program and that the baseball program is now suffering the consequences.
I also look at the Pac 10, one of the premier conferences in the nation, and cannot believe the a California-based member of the Pac 10 would even consider dropping the premier spring sport that has been played at the school for so long. If it were up to me, I would expel Cal from the conference over this issue (I know it is not up to me and understand that the other members would never consider such a move). Nonetheless, it is humiliating to the league and the school and cannot be easily corrected or undone. But, a look at the lack of facilities at Cal and the poor conditions of those that exist, tell a very clear story.
I think your view of the broader state of college athletics in America, infield dad, is to a degree distorted and mostly inaccurate. Time will tell which one of us is right. For the sake of your son and many, many others, I hope it is me.
jemaz,
since I don't believe I have expressed a view on the broader state of athletics, I don't quite understand how it could be distorted and inaccurate, unless of course you are saying the comments that nearly every major public university athletic department, with a few of the top BCS type schools excepted, run deficits is distorted and inaccurate.
What I have posted before is the same ideas O'44 and others have referenced: is Cal abolishing baseball and the reasons they did something that is an important issue for college baseball...going forward.
While I have never been to Blacksburg, I will say I am envious. One of my very best friends grew up there, his father was/is a professor there and we have talked about his fondness/experiences many, many times.
I have also had the great delight to spend some hours talking with Pete Hughes at the Stanford Camp and fully understand why Pete loves the school, the community and how it differs from Boston.
If we were to put schools and communities in opposite parts of the universe of this Country, they likely would be Cal and Va. Tech and Blacksburg and Berkeley.
Since I consider Va. Tech to be one of those to benefit from the BCS, I thought I already posted they won't have the issues I have discussed. Having had a daughter attend Michigan, I don't see the issue there, at OSU, Florida, LSU, Texas and the like.
In fact, if the economy turns around and becomes robust so that public support for education is not a burden/tax focus, we won't have this discussion.
The public universities I am referencing are schools like Kansas, Kansas State, Houston, Iowa, and many others. They are forced to add costs to compete for BCS/TV revenue. If their football programs don't meet with huge financial success(I question if a basketball only will support a department at most large public universities), then tax payers and student costs and fees are the resource to fund deficits..sans a Phil Knight or T Boone Pickens alum.
If tax revenues continue to decline and athletic costs continue to skyrocket, while tuition/fees accelerate for students and parents, something must give.
Schools like Wisconsin and Colorado have chosen the path to never confront those choices.
Iowa State made their decision a few years back, when expenses were not nearly this high and the economy not nearly this poor.
If Cal football had the success to become a BCS power, this discussion would not occur.
My point is most of those schools outside the top 20-30 with BCS security and Final Four type security may face the very same choices Cal did.
My only point, distorted, inaccurate or not, is that
Baseball is vulnerable if/when that happens.
since I don't believe I have expressed a view on the broader state of athletics, I don't quite understand how it could be distorted and inaccurate, unless of course you are saying the comments that nearly every major public university athletic department, with a few of the top BCS type schools excepted, run deficits is distorted and inaccurate.
What I have posted before is the same ideas O'44 and others have referenced: is Cal abolishing baseball and the reasons they did something that is an important issue for college baseball...going forward.
While I have never been to Blacksburg, I will say I am envious. One of my very best friends grew up there, his father was/is a professor there and we have talked about his fondness/experiences many, many times.
I have also had the great delight to spend some hours talking with Pete Hughes at the Stanford Camp and fully understand why Pete loves the school, the community and how it differs from Boston.
If we were to put schools and communities in opposite parts of the universe of this Country, they likely would be Cal and Va. Tech and Blacksburg and Berkeley.
Since I consider Va. Tech to be one of those to benefit from the BCS, I thought I already posted they won't have the issues I have discussed. Having had a daughter attend Michigan, I don't see the issue there, at OSU, Florida, LSU, Texas and the like.
In fact, if the economy turns around and becomes robust so that public support for education is not a burden/tax focus, we won't have this discussion.
The public universities I am referencing are schools like Kansas, Kansas State, Houston, Iowa, and many others. They are forced to add costs to compete for BCS/TV revenue. If their football programs don't meet with huge financial success(I question if a basketball only will support a department at most large public universities), then tax payers and student costs and fees are the resource to fund deficits..sans a Phil Knight or T Boone Pickens alum.
If tax revenues continue to decline and athletic costs continue to skyrocket, while tuition/fees accelerate for students and parents, something must give.
Schools like Wisconsin and Colorado have chosen the path to never confront those choices.
Iowa State made their decision a few years back, when expenses were not nearly this high and the economy not nearly this poor.
If Cal football had the success to become a BCS power, this discussion would not occur.
My point is most of those schools outside the top 20-30 with BCS security and Final Four type security may face the very same choices Cal did.
My only point, distorted, inaccurate or not, is that
Baseball is vulnerable if/when that happens.
quote:If we were to put schools and communities in opposite parts of the universe of this Country, they likely would be Cal and Va. Tech and Blacksburg and Berkeley.
Whew! Having lived in or near both towns and universities...it would be hard to come up with a more true statement than the one above!
quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:quote:If we were to put schools and communities in opposite parts of the universe of this Country, they likely would be Cal and Va. Tech and Blacksburg and Berkeley.
Whew! Having lived in or near both towns and universities...it would be hard to come up with a more true statement than the one above!
You mean I finally got one right?
All I can say is no program is safe it appears. There will be about 30 good ballplayers looking to play D1, now even more competition for this level of baseball.
jemaz is correct. If it's not a prority to the institution or the ALUMNI then the program should be dropped. Trust me, there's zero chance the alumni will allow 100+ years of baseball tradition to be flushed.