I've sat on this fence since since the mid 80's when the Univ of WI dropped baseball. I will comment that dropping baseball and other non-revenue sports at the UW not only did it begin the turn-around with the Athletic budget, but, also sent a message to the State, Badger fans, and general public that there is concerted efforts made to "fix" the the Athletic Dept fiscal woes. A University does not get up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and look to cause pain. These decisions by Athletic Departments are thought out and debated over time, but there is also number crunching, realities, and pressures from "higher-ups" to find solutions. We can sit in our armchairs and throw our hands up in disgust when situations like this arise......but it is not our business to run. Unfortunately, Cal, like the U of WI was, will become a sacrificial lamb where other school administrations will hopefully take the hint and proactively plan for the future of non-revenue sports, and programs with the help of alumni will solicit financial support.
quote:Originally posted by rz1:
I've sat on this fence since since the mid 80's when the Univ of WI dropped baseball. I will comment that dropping baseball and other non-revenue sports at the UW not only did it begin the turn-around with the Athletic budget, but, also sent a message to the State, Badger fans, and general public that there is concerted efforts made to "fix" the the Athletic Dept fiscal woes. A University does not get up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and look to cause pain. These decisions by Athletic Departments are thought out and debated over time, but there is also number crunching, realities, and pressures from "higher-ups" to find solutions. We can sit in our armchairs and throw our hands up in disgust when situations like this arise......but it is not our business to run. Unfortunately, Cal like the U of WI was, will become a sacrificial lamb where other schools will hopefully take the hint and proactively plan for the future of non-revenue sports.
Just thought this was somehow (at least loosely) relevant to the discussion. Lots of $$ out there...have to wonder how well its managed at times? 
Ohio State AD could earn $1.2M
Ohio State AD could earn $1.2M
quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:
Just thought this was somehow (at least loosely) relevant to the discussion. Lots of $$ out there...have to wonder how well its managed at times?
IMO you could pick the name of almost any corporation and EVERY governmental agency and ask that same question. Most people, and in most cases I'm probably more guilty than most, seem to look at problems and wonder why those in charge can't figure it out. However, at least in the corporate world, the bottom line is problems/setbacks rise to the top for all to see, and the big-time successful by-products that have rewards for those who "make it happen" are often ignored. For us on the outside looking in, we tend to associate the "bad" moves with successful rewards. In reality, those who the public openly criticize for making a "great living" probably have successes that substantially outweigh their failures. If the failures start creeping closer to the successes in a fiscal sense a pink slip is not far behind.
jmo
It appears a Cal player who already transfered to a SEC D-1 this fall is now wanting to get the waiver that has been discussed in this thread to play immediately. Does this seem right? He had already transfered and knew he was going to have to sit a year. How would he be in the same boat as the rest of the team that just got the news on Tuesday?
iheartbb - I don't know the answer for sure but I would think that since he transfered prior to the trigger event (the announcement) that he would not qualify for the discontinued/nonsponsored Sport Exception which means he would need to sit for one year. See Rules below for Discontinued/Nonsponsored Sport Exception.
14.5.5.2.6 Discontinued/Nonsponsored Sport Exception.
In a particular sport when the student transfers at any time to the certifying institution and participates in the sport on the intercollegiate level after any of the following conditions has occurred:
(a) The student’s original four-year collegiate institution dropped (or has publicly announced it will drop) the sport (in which the student has practiced or competed at that institution in intercollegiate competition) from its intercollegiate program ; or (Revised: 3/10/04)
(b) The student’s original four-year collegiate institution reclassified (or has publicly announced it will reclassify) the sport (in which the student has practiced or competed at that institution in intercollegiate competition) from Division I to Division III status, and the student subsequently had not competed in that sport on the Division III level; or (Revised: 3/10/04)
(c) The student’s original four-year collegiate institution never sponsored the sport on the intercollegiate level while the student was in attendance at the institution, provided the student had never transferred from any other collegiate institution that offered intercollegiate competition in that particular sport.
14.5.5.2.6.1 Original Institution. In applying this provision for an exception to the residence requirement, the original collegiate institution shall be the one in which the student was enrolled immediately prior to transfer to the certifying institution, it being understood that, if the student is transferring from an institution that never sponsored the sport on the intercollegiate level, the student never shall have attended any other collegiate institution that offered intercollegiate competition in that sport.
14.5.5.2.6 Discontinued/Nonsponsored Sport Exception.
In a particular sport when the student transfers at any time to the certifying institution and participates in the sport on the intercollegiate level after any of the following conditions has occurred:
(a) The student’s original four-year collegiate institution dropped (or has publicly announced it will drop) the sport (in which the student has practiced or competed at that institution in intercollegiate competition) from its intercollegiate program ; or (Revised: 3/10/04)
(b) The student’s original four-year collegiate institution reclassified (or has publicly announced it will reclassify) the sport (in which the student has practiced or competed at that institution in intercollegiate competition) from Division I to Division III status, and the student subsequently had not competed in that sport on the Division III level; or (Revised: 3/10/04)
(c) The student’s original four-year collegiate institution never sponsored the sport on the intercollegiate level while the student was in attendance at the institution, provided the student had never transferred from any other collegiate institution that offered intercollegiate competition in that particular sport.
14.5.5.2.6.1 Original Institution. In applying this provision for an exception to the residence requirement, the original collegiate institution shall be the one in which the student was enrolled immediately prior to transfer to the certifying institution, it being understood that, if the student is transferring from an institution that never sponsored the sport on the intercollegiate level, the student never shall have attended any other collegiate institution that offered intercollegiate competition in that sport.
I think the timing of the announcement would be important in consdering a waiver request. If the announcement occurred before the beginning of the academic year (say in the summer) then I suppose that there is little reason to provide a waiver. The player would have been able to transfer at the beginning of the academic year, although possibly without much time to select a new school.
In the Cal situation, the players have little opportunity to transfer before the conclusion of the first term--perhaps possible in some instances, but not a good idea from an academic point of view. Maybe the committee would think a waiver would better fit the intent of the rule.
In the Cal situation, the players have little opportunity to transfer before the conclusion of the first term--perhaps possible in some instances, but not a good idea from an academic point of view. Maybe the committee would think a waiver would better fit the intent of the rule.
I just am always so impressed with the thought, time, and point of views that are expressed here.
In reading the views I get the whys and feel that
infdad is I'm sorry to say right on.
That said, what can we as a community do about this, meaning "The potential avalanche of losing more and more baseball programs?
What are we willing to do about this?
Once a major baseball school, with major visibility unlike no iowa and vermont does this, well it now gives plenty of reasons for more and more braniac admin and boards the ammunition to do it at their instituitions without the political fallback that would normally be tied into that kind of decision.
I am so sad about this and how it ties into the entire mess our country is in and how choices and decisions by admin and ADs are affecting the college landscape. And of course its the cya approach and do whats best for the individual school like Nebraska going to the Big Ten, schools going to the Pac Ten. This has gotten way over the top. And all for the big TV bucks and contracts. Does the NCAA have any power like the NFL to structure the orgs so its a fairer playing field?????
Sorry I like to ramble, and get things off my chest that I have been thinking about.
In reading the views I get the whys and feel that
infdad is I'm sorry to say right on.
That said, what can we as a community do about this, meaning "The potential avalanche of losing more and more baseball programs?
What are we willing to do about this?
Once a major baseball school, with major visibility unlike no iowa and vermont does this, well it now gives plenty of reasons for more and more braniac admin and boards the ammunition to do it at their instituitions without the political fallback that would normally be tied into that kind of decision.
I am so sad about this and how it ties into the entire mess our country is in and how choices and decisions by admin and ADs are affecting the college landscape. And of course its the cya approach and do whats best for the individual school like Nebraska going to the Big Ten, schools going to the Pac Ten. This has gotten way over the top. And all for the big TV bucks and contracts. Does the NCAA have any power like the NFL to structure the orgs so its a fairer playing field?????
Sorry I like to ramble, and get things off my chest that I have been thinking about.
quote:Does the NCAA have any power like the NFL to structure the orgs so its a fairer playing field?????
I agree with every thing you said except this.LOL
The NCAA just screws everything up.The less they have to say the better.
In my view, this post, which I have cut and pasted from the Stanford baseball message board is very thoughtful and articulate.
"I think there's a lot more below the surface of Cal's decision then a money shortage. I am sure the shortages made the issues more acute and immediate, but there have been simmering disputes at Cal and other prestigious academic institutions for years over the costs of athletics and how that impacts the educational mission of the school.
According to various sources, the committee that terminated baseball did not allow the team to raise its own funds, like Cal's Rugby team does, in order to defray expenses. This indicates to me that baseball was used as the sacrificial lamb to deflect the Cal faculty, who are increasingly vocal and hostile to intercollegiate athletics and their costs. If it's not acceptable to raise your own funding to stay in existence, then there are bigger issues at play. I personally think the Cal faculty was looking for some "significant" concession from the athletic department and the ADs hand was forced to drop a major sport. Apparently the decision came down to dropping baseball or men's s****r, and they chose baseball (probably because there were double the number of male athletes to drop than s****r--Title IX had an impact as well). Now when the Cal faculty complains, the athletic department can shield themselves with the baseball program cancellation.
My friends who are members of various college faculties, particularly those at prestigious academic institutions like Cal, are increasingly concerned about the costs of D1 athletics. It was a clear theme of the Cal Chancellor and AD, in their statements, to push back on the current national trends of athletic funding increases as well, and they intend to use certain positions of influence to make the case that too much money is being spent on D1 athletics.
I think Cal baseball is the first significant salvo in a longer term war over athletic funding that will continue over the next ten years or so, and if it becomes acceptable for a leading school in a major conference to drop a major sport, then the floodgates will surely open with more program cancellations at significant schools.
I think sports needs to make the case from an educational standpoint about how it helps its students to succeed in school and in life, develops highly loyal alumni, and increases the diversity of the school. I also think if sports can be targeted, then academic areas can be evaluated as well. If a major sport like baseball, which has a 100+ year history at Cal, isn't "tenured," then why should faculty be tenured, and perhaps they should have to continually justify their existence. If this truly becomes a struggle between faculty and athletics, both sides of the equation should be evaluated."
To my reading, the post is thoughtful on the current situation.
More importantly, the author focuses on the future. The post presents some ideas about what baseball might need to do not only to enhance its image within an athletic budget but also to counter the ever increasing furor and scrutiny on the cost of DI college athletics.
Today, an article in the SF Chronicle posted that Cal baseball incurs a net loss cost in the Athletic Budget of just under $1,000,000. In a public university, where faculty salaries are frozen, phone service is eliminated, classroom roofs are leaking, etc, one can see how that loss can be a justification for the action taken.
I doubt Cal is the exception. May well be the rule.
To me, the Stanford board poster makes great points for discussion.
Perhaps college baseball coaches, and everyone involved with it as players, parents, fans and those using the internet would be best served by creating a method and doing a better job of marketing their sport internally and externally, of fund raising, and publicizing the benefits of their players as students, athletes and alumni.
The bottom line question is whether 2-3 weeks in June on ESPN is adequate to create more sustained interest in college baseball as a sport so that a large majority of "fans," not parents, view it as essential and critical in DI athletics.
"I think there's a lot more below the surface of Cal's decision then a money shortage. I am sure the shortages made the issues more acute and immediate, but there have been simmering disputes at Cal and other prestigious academic institutions for years over the costs of athletics and how that impacts the educational mission of the school.
According to various sources, the committee that terminated baseball did not allow the team to raise its own funds, like Cal's Rugby team does, in order to defray expenses. This indicates to me that baseball was used as the sacrificial lamb to deflect the Cal faculty, who are increasingly vocal and hostile to intercollegiate athletics and their costs. If it's not acceptable to raise your own funding to stay in existence, then there are bigger issues at play. I personally think the Cal faculty was looking for some "significant" concession from the athletic department and the ADs hand was forced to drop a major sport. Apparently the decision came down to dropping baseball or men's s****r, and they chose baseball (probably because there were double the number of male athletes to drop than s****r--Title IX had an impact as well). Now when the Cal faculty complains, the athletic department can shield themselves with the baseball program cancellation.
My friends who are members of various college faculties, particularly those at prestigious academic institutions like Cal, are increasingly concerned about the costs of D1 athletics. It was a clear theme of the Cal Chancellor and AD, in their statements, to push back on the current national trends of athletic funding increases as well, and they intend to use certain positions of influence to make the case that too much money is being spent on D1 athletics.
I think Cal baseball is the first significant salvo in a longer term war over athletic funding that will continue over the next ten years or so, and if it becomes acceptable for a leading school in a major conference to drop a major sport, then the floodgates will surely open with more program cancellations at significant schools.
I think sports needs to make the case from an educational standpoint about how it helps its students to succeed in school and in life, develops highly loyal alumni, and increases the diversity of the school. I also think if sports can be targeted, then academic areas can be evaluated as well. If a major sport like baseball, which has a 100+ year history at Cal, isn't "tenured," then why should faculty be tenured, and perhaps they should have to continually justify their existence. If this truly becomes a struggle between faculty and athletics, both sides of the equation should be evaluated."
To my reading, the post is thoughtful on the current situation.
More importantly, the author focuses on the future. The post presents some ideas about what baseball might need to do not only to enhance its image within an athletic budget but also to counter the ever increasing furor and scrutiny on the cost of DI college athletics.
Today, an article in the SF Chronicle posted that Cal baseball incurs a net loss cost in the Athletic Budget of just under $1,000,000. In a public university, where faculty salaries are frozen, phone service is eliminated, classroom roofs are leaking, etc, one can see how that loss can be a justification for the action taken.
I doubt Cal is the exception. May well be the rule.
To me, the Stanford board poster makes great points for discussion.
Perhaps college baseball coaches, and everyone involved with it as players, parents, fans and those using the internet would be best served by creating a method and doing a better job of marketing their sport internally and externally, of fund raising, and publicizing the benefits of their players as students, athletes and alumni.
The bottom line question is whether 2-3 weeks in June on ESPN is adequate to create more sustained interest in college baseball as a sport so that a large majority of "fans," not parents, view it as essential and critical in DI athletics.
quote:I think sports needs to make the case from an educational standpoint about how it helps its students to succeed in school and in life, develops highly loyal alumni, and increases the diversity of the school. I also think if sports can be targeted, then academic areas can be evaluated as well. If a major sport like baseball, which has a 100+ year history at Cal, isn't "tenured," then why should faculty be tenured, and perhaps they should have to continually justify their existence. If this truly becomes a struggle between faculty and athletics, both sides of the equation should be evaluated."
It's a decision that has to be made sometimes. I feel bad for the players and coaches at Cal. Obviously we all know this is not the first time it's happened and it certainly will not be the last.
I think what people need to realize is that athletics are just one part of a university picture. Academics need to be #1 for a university and so when cuts need to be made, they often go after athletics first. I truly believe much of this comes from being jealous.
When athletics are not making money, people are quick to say they should be cut. But those same people would not stand for cutting other "extra" programs at a university. When was the last time a fine arts program made money? If universities are going to use that as a criteria for athletics, it needs to be criteria for other non-academic things as well..
I have a friend who graduated from Cal a year ago. He told me he knew the BB team would likely be cut.
The Ivy faculties have been fighting athletic admits for years.
The Ivy faculties have been fighting athletic admits for years.
Good post infielddad - thanks for sharing.
No one loves college baseball more than me but I dispute the assertion (from the Stanford post) that college baseball is a major sport. Football and basketball are major sports and that is all I'll concede.
Some of these issues are a problem in the PAC 10 itself imho. Every year, a certain amount of air travel is involved and that gets expensive in a hurry. At my son's former school, travel expenses were offset by fundraising and family donations in some cases. For instance, when my son's team traveled to Hawaii in 2009, each player was responsible for raising 700.00 in order to participate on the trip. Moreover, schools located in the southeast can get to almost all their competing schools by bus. It seems to me that the PAC 10 being spread out from Washington to Arizona has expense issues not associated with other programs.
I see the solutions a little differently. The Cal announcement is a siren call for college baseball teams to be more proactive to balance their own internal budgets. That way, they cannot be used as a reason for getting cut. If that means asking for more personal contributions from family and other doners then so be it. If that means scaling back the travel, then so be it. The solution to me is balance your own budget and take that excuse away from the Athletic Department. I am not saying it is going to be easy, but there are lots of creative and smart coaches out there who can figure out how to do more with less.
Develop a plan so this doesn't happen to your program. You might be able to go somewhere else where this (money issues) is not currently a problem, but it will indeed be an issue for every program out there someday imho.
No one loves college baseball more than me but I dispute the assertion (from the Stanford post) that college baseball is a major sport. Football and basketball are major sports and that is all I'll concede.
Some of these issues are a problem in the PAC 10 itself imho. Every year, a certain amount of air travel is involved and that gets expensive in a hurry. At my son's former school, travel expenses were offset by fundraising and family donations in some cases. For instance, when my son's team traveled to Hawaii in 2009, each player was responsible for raising 700.00 in order to participate on the trip. Moreover, schools located in the southeast can get to almost all their competing schools by bus. It seems to me that the PAC 10 being spread out from Washington to Arizona has expense issues not associated with other programs.
I see the solutions a little differently. The Cal announcement is a siren call for college baseball teams to be more proactive to balance their own internal budgets. That way, they cannot be used as a reason for getting cut. If that means asking for more personal contributions from family and other doners then so be it. If that means scaling back the travel, then so be it. The solution to me is balance your own budget and take that excuse away from the Athletic Department. I am not saying it is going to be easy, but there are lots of creative and smart coaches out there who can figure out how to do more with less.
Develop a plan so this doesn't happen to your program. You might be able to go somewhere else where this (money issues) is not currently a problem, but it will indeed be an issue for every program out there someday imho.
Another message board I read is collegeconfidential.com. There are many posters on that site that HATE athletics being used for admission purposes and if they had their way, there would be no sports in college. Obviously I love college baseball and want to see it continue. Universities are looking for well rounded students and try to make up well rounded classes. For some, athletics are an important part of being well rounded.
quote:Originally posted by CaBB:
Another message board I read is collegeconfidential.com. There are many posters on that site that HATE athletics being used for admission purposes and if they had their way, there would be no sports in college. Obviously I love college baseball and want to see it continue. Universities are looking for well rounded students and try to make up well rounded classes. For some, athletics are an important part of being well rounded.
While I am admittedly biased as a parent of baseball player(s)...I was raised by parents, both university educators (father an engineering professor and mother an instructor/program director). They would have never agreed with the "HATE" on athletics referred to above. Never.
I believe this is largely posted by parents lamenting the overall difficulty of their kids being admitted to the schools of their choice.
I can speak very directly on how the "geeky" students helped my son mature and become more well rounded as a student and as a person and how the "jocks" helped the geeky students to mature and become more well rounded as well...at Stanford. While some of the athletes certainly gained admission because of the added bump of being athletically gifted...all were very gifted students as well. I firmly believe its one of the things that makes Stanford a very unique and special place and that both athletes and non-athletes gain a lot from each other.
quote:Another message board I read is collegeconfidential.com. There are many posters on that site that HATE athletics being used for admission purposes and if they had their way, there would be no sports in college. Obviously I love college baseball and want to see it continue. Universities are looking for well rounded students and try to make up well rounded classes. For some, athletics are an important part of being well rounded.
Yeah, but those same people have no problem with the university subsidizing fine arts programs who all lose money. Just the fact that athletics are sports they cannot stand them. I'm a member there too
quote:Originally posted by Bulldog 19:quote:Another message board I read is collegeconfidential.com. There are many posters on that site that HATE athletics being used for admission purposes and if they had their way, there would be no sports in college. Obviously I love college baseball and want to see it continue. Universities are looking for well rounded students and try to make up well rounded classes. For some, athletics are an important part of being well rounded.
Yeah, but those same people have no problem with the university subsidizing fine arts programs who all lose money. Just the fact that athletics are sports they cannot stand them. I'm a member there too
Good point. I wonder how much revenue 100+ member marching bands generate? I love the band just as much as the next guy but things can always be justified and other things can always be eliminated in the name of economics.
Im at work and dont have time to read the whole post but are there any rumblings of other University of California campuses considering dropping baseball? Or any other major state Us for that matter? The college search is complicated enough without having to find out if baseball is going to be around for my kid 
quote:Originally posted by 06catcherdad:
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!
06catcherdad - Thanks for the update and clarification on the status of the mid-year DI transfer waiver option for the Cal players. I am sorry that the Cal players are not left with options for this year but I am pleased to see that the NCAA is applying their rules consistently from program to program.
I agree, I will be pulling for CAL to do very well in their final season!
Awesome posts infield dad, bulldog and justbaseball,
Students, mine included can become better and more well rounded people and members of society by being exposed to one another. Learning to respect and even admire others not in your area say "jock" and "premed prelaw" is a great argument to make. And it makes sense.
The argument about band or even say humanities departments is well taken. Last time I looked the daily newspapers do not have any "Humanities sections" but they do have daily sports sections with baseball being the lead when in season. The coverage goes to regional papers as well as they cover the minor league teams and local major colleges.
So which is really more important to our society as a whole? Why did I have to take 1 full year of humanities in college when in todays world it never gets any coverage of interest unless maybe the Sunday paper. If non revenue sports are on the block then majors with low enrollment need to be cut as well. If student fees do not cover a departments cost then cut it.
Students, mine included can become better and more well rounded people and members of society by being exposed to one another. Learning to respect and even admire others not in your area say "jock" and "premed prelaw" is a great argument to make. And it makes sense.
The argument about band or even say humanities departments is well taken. Last time I looked the daily newspapers do not have any "Humanities sections" but they do have daily sports sections with baseball being the lead when in season. The coverage goes to regional papers as well as they cover the minor league teams and local major colleges.
So which is really more important to our society as a whole? Why did I have to take 1 full year of humanities in college when in todays world it never gets any coverage of interest unless maybe the Sunday paper. If non revenue sports are on the block then majors with low enrollment need to be cut as well. If student fees do not cover a departments cost then cut it.
I was reading a northern California focused sports website, and someone mentioned an interesting concept. The poster asked why don't we, whoever 'we' may be, try to change Title IX? I thought that was very interesting. Why should any university, or high school for that matter, down-grade or eliminate any program in the name of equality? Shouldn't a law such as Title IX be used only to improve the standing of programs that lag, but not be used to damage programs that are doing better?
I've seen several instances where universities out here in northern CA turned down significant private donations to put in lights on the baseball field, citing Title IX since the donors were not also funding lights on the softball field, or some other women's sport. Who in their right mind can think this helps anyone???? I'm sure I'm not the only one who is way beyond tired of this PC/liberal BS that happens when administrators hide behind laws like Title IX.
So the question is, why not get it changed? Why not get it amended to address teams that lag behind without penalizing those teams that are favored by donors? I'd really like to get some answers to this, and may start with my congressman. What do the rest of you think? I think the lady or gentleman who posted this on NorcalPreps may be on to something, an idea who's time has come so to speak.
I've seen several instances where universities out here in northern CA turned down significant private donations to put in lights on the baseball field, citing Title IX since the donors were not also funding lights on the softball field, or some other women's sport. Who in their right mind can think this helps anyone???? I'm sure I'm not the only one who is way beyond tired of this PC/liberal BS that happens when administrators hide behind laws like Title IX.
So the question is, why not get it changed? Why not get it amended to address teams that lag behind without penalizing those teams that are favored by donors? I'd really like to get some answers to this, and may start with my congressman. What do the rest of you think? I think the lady or gentleman who posted this on NorcalPreps may be on to something, an idea who's time has come so to speak.
06Catcherdad--I'm not sure college adminstrators turning down private donations is really a political issue (as you frame it). It would seem, at least on the facts you present, to be more of an issue of incorrectly interpreting the mandates of Title IX (which is about equal accessibility of programs for men and women student-athletes). Although I'll join you (because I'm PC 
) in lamenting that the situation you describe is probably more common than we see reported.
On the main topic of the thread--Perhaps because I tend to be PC (they call that "civility" where I come from), I sure don't like reading comments hostile toward the academic side of university life. Always be wary of your own parochialism, folks.
No doubt there's disdain for college sports among some in the Ivory Tower. But that's no reason for sports fans to take up the opposing position and complain about things like, say, the inclusion of Fine Arts or Humanities in the curriculum.
Let's remember that just because you might not have any interest in the Fine Arts (or humanities, or whatever your pet-peeve happens to be), the curriculum comes first at the academy. Instead of decrying the non-revenue-generating elements of university life (like, say, Fine Arts), us college sports fans should be making the same arguments as the Ivory Tower-types in favor of protecting collegiate sports, and baseball in particular. Specifically, that baseball, like Fine Arts or Humanities, adds to university life. It adds diversity and depth to the college experience and student body. It mixes students with different backgrounds, interests, and goals. That mixing can in the right circumstance expand intellectual and physical boundaries, leading to a higher quality experience in general. The academy and sports have always gone together for this reason. I recognize that for many, these might be considered ethereal, liberal/PC (or worse) ideals. But that's what's supposed to happened within the confines of academic life.
If the Stanford BB poster quoted in infielddad's comment above is correct in his surmise that some on the academic side brought their resentment to bear in the politics around the Cal decision, then that's irrationale on a level that's difficult to contend with. On the other hand, it's doubtful that those same academics had a specific bone to pick with baseball. And armed with facts like the athletics operating deficit (wrought ostensibly by a lavish investment in Football and general athletics facilities), loss of their own phone service, and leaky classrooms, they made an easy case to the administration that it had better pick visible, revenue losing sacrificial programs to start on the road to fiscal sustainability. And this is how the politics of scarce resources (my professional field of work) always works.
And FWIW, I write this not to defend the academy; not by any stretch. I had my own difficulties with professors as a college athlete at an intellectually high-end college. But my persistence there lead to an appreciation of the importance of the mix of sporting and academic life. And to me that was extremely beneficial to me and my non-athletic friends alike.
) in lamenting that the situation you describe is probably more common than we see reported.On the main topic of the thread--Perhaps because I tend to be PC (they call that "civility" where I come from), I sure don't like reading comments hostile toward the academic side of university life. Always be wary of your own parochialism, folks.
No doubt there's disdain for college sports among some in the Ivory Tower. But that's no reason for sports fans to take up the opposing position and complain about things like, say, the inclusion of Fine Arts or Humanities in the curriculum.
Let's remember that just because you might not have any interest in the Fine Arts (or humanities, or whatever your pet-peeve happens to be), the curriculum comes first at the academy. Instead of decrying the non-revenue-generating elements of university life (like, say, Fine Arts), us college sports fans should be making the same arguments as the Ivory Tower-types in favor of protecting collegiate sports, and baseball in particular. Specifically, that baseball, like Fine Arts or Humanities, adds to university life. It adds diversity and depth to the college experience and student body. It mixes students with different backgrounds, interests, and goals. That mixing can in the right circumstance expand intellectual and physical boundaries, leading to a higher quality experience in general. The academy and sports have always gone together for this reason. I recognize that for many, these might be considered ethereal, liberal/PC (or worse) ideals. But that's what's supposed to happened within the confines of academic life.
If the Stanford BB poster quoted in infielddad's comment above is correct in his surmise that some on the academic side brought their resentment to bear in the politics around the Cal decision, then that's irrationale on a level that's difficult to contend with. On the other hand, it's doubtful that those same academics had a specific bone to pick with baseball. And armed with facts like the athletics operating deficit (wrought ostensibly by a lavish investment in Football and general athletics facilities), loss of their own phone service, and leaky classrooms, they made an easy case to the administration that it had better pick visible, revenue losing sacrificial programs to start on the road to fiscal sustainability. And this is how the politics of scarce resources (my professional field of work) always works.
And FWIW, I write this not to defend the academy; not by any stretch. I had my own difficulties with professors as a college athlete at an intellectually high-end college. But my persistence there lead to an appreciation of the importance of the mix of sporting and academic life. And to me that was extremely beneficial to me and my non-athletic friends alike.
Tres, while I agree with much of what you say, I still have a major problem with Title IX, and the fact they're using it as the reason to drop baseball. It's been reported by people with first hand knowledge that, if necessary, Cal Baseball can self fund. The administration put that aside and said they were dropping baseball to comply with Title IX. I'd like ANYONE to defend the logic in that stance. It is idiotic, below the supposed level of intellect that one would expect from any administrator at a major university.
tres, I'm not saying do away with fine arts. Although I do disagree with it being a requirement for a degree. But that's another topic..
What I'm saying is those who criticize athletics spending do not criticize fine arts spending. Really they are the same thing; they just fill a different need on that college campus. One of my favorite teachers was the drama sponsor in high school. I loved her. But I didn't care for drama. I played sports. Different loves for different people..
What I'm saying is those who criticize athletics spending do not criticize fine arts spending. Really they are the same thing; they just fill a different need on that college campus. One of my favorite teachers was the drama sponsor in high school. I loved her. But I didn't care for drama. I played sports. Different loves for different people..
I have also heard from several sources that it is NOT a money issue, something fishy going on here. If it's because of Title IX that is really wrong.
If any of you are interested...there is a facebook page called "Save Cal Baseball". If you are a facebook member you can go to this site and "Like" it to join and you can then read and post about the issue. It looks like there are some people posting there that have first hand knowledge of the situation (players parents).
Link to Save Cal Baseball FB page
Link to Save Cal Baseball FB page
This message was posted on the "Save Cal Baseball" FB page today...
Great news! We had a very positive, productive meeting with Sandy Barbour today. She was open and honest in her support of our efforts and confirmed that the door is open to reinstatement! We have a lot of work to do, but the University expressed a desire and willingness to work with us! Let's have a huge show of support tomorrow to kick off our efforts!
Save Cal Baseball Rally at Evans Diamond!
Evans Diamond U.C. Berkeley campus
Saturday, October 9 · 9:30am - 11:30am
Save Cal Baseball and support all recently cut Cal sport's teams! Bring your kids, family, and friends and baseball gear to this event! Everyone will be able to play catch and run on the field. Meet the 2010-2011 Cal Baseball team and coaches, as well as past and present Major League players and Golden Bear Alumni! Come join us to show your support in front of TV and radio stations and other media. Tell your friends- all are welcome!
Great news! We had a very positive, productive meeting with Sandy Barbour today. She was open and honest in her support of our efforts and confirmed that the door is open to reinstatement! We have a lot of work to do, but the University expressed a desire and willingness to work with us! Let's have a huge show of support tomorrow to kick off our efforts!
Save Cal Baseball Rally at Evans Diamond!
Evans Diamond U.C. Berkeley campus
Saturday, October 9 · 9:30am - 11:30am
Save Cal Baseball and support all recently cut Cal sport's teams! Bring your kids, family, and friends and baseball gear to this event! Everyone will be able to play catch and run on the field. Meet the 2010-2011 Cal Baseball team and coaches, as well as past and present Major League players and Golden Bear Alumni! Come join us to show your support in front of TV and radio stations and other media. Tell your friends- all are welcome!
Awesome I hope they get it back.
cheap, let 'em know you guys have support from as far away as Seoul, Korea! Good luck!
$5 million? Assuming $600K at most for scholarships where is the rest of the money going to? Maybe $1 million for travel at most. $1 million if the coaches are very well paid. That leaves $2.4 million for equipment, umpires and maintenance?
I guess they are having to come up with enough to fund multiple years assuming they wouldn't be able to get as many donations for subsequent seasons.
I guess they are having to come up with enough to fund multiple years assuming they wouldn't be able to get as many donations for subsequent seasons.
CADad,
I don't think anyone knows those answers for sure.
Reading everything I have been able to find, it appears they need to raise $5M for 2012 and $25,000,000 to secure baseball over the longer term.
Many make a pretty persuasive argument that some significant portion of the $5M has to relate to reinstating a sport for women, perhaps even more than one, for Title IX compliance.
A pretty reliable person suggested Cal had and may still have some very significant compliance aspects to address.
On top of everything else, reports are that Rugby is also working aggressively to be reinstated.
Some point out the sports are working against each other and Title IX eliminates the idea that both could possibly be reinstated.
To me, there is a much more practical issue: can they recruit for 2012? In addition, one would think their current freshman and sophomores, along with some juniors need to have personal plans in place that does not include Cal for 2012.
Even if they raise the money and Title IX aspects are met, where and how do they get the players to be competitive?
I don't think anyone knows those answers for sure.
Reading everything I have been able to find, it appears they need to raise $5M for 2012 and $25,000,000 to secure baseball over the longer term.
Many make a pretty persuasive argument that some significant portion of the $5M has to relate to reinstating a sport for women, perhaps even more than one, for Title IX compliance.
A pretty reliable person suggested Cal had and may still have some very significant compliance aspects to address.
On top of everything else, reports are that Rugby is also working aggressively to be reinstated.
Some point out the sports are working against each other and Title IX eliminates the idea that both could possibly be reinstated.
To me, there is a much more practical issue: can they recruit for 2012? In addition, one would think their current freshman and sophomores, along with some juniors need to have personal plans in place that does not include Cal for 2012.
Even if they raise the money and Title IX aspects are met, where and how do they get the players to be competitive?
Here are some exerts from a facebook message I received from the "Save Cal Baseball" group yesterday which gives a brief update on the situation......
"I just wanted to give a positive update. We had a productive meeting with Chancellor Birgeneau Wednesday. While he maintains that we have an uphill battle, he was eager to learn of our significant efforts thus far. He can't give us specific numbers or a time frame, but he did in fact say the door to reinstatement is open! It will take money and a plan toward fiscal sustainability. Since we all know Cal turns out brilliant, creative, and energetic alums, we know we'll do it! Huge efforts toward this end are in the works!
Our official pledge drive is about to start. To date, through a joint effort bridging generations of Cal Alums, we already have approximately $3.5 million in pledges! We think a realistic goal is $10 million by January 1st! Our efforts will also include the reinstatement of women's lacrosse and women's gymnastics, so if you are fans of those sports, your money will be doubly useful!
"I just wanted to give a positive update. We had a productive meeting with Chancellor Birgeneau Wednesday. While he maintains that we have an uphill battle, he was eager to learn of our significant efforts thus far. He can't give us specific numbers or a time frame, but he did in fact say the door to reinstatement is open! It will take money and a plan toward fiscal sustainability. Since we all know Cal turns out brilliant, creative, and energetic alums, we know we'll do it! Huge efforts toward this end are in the works!
Our official pledge drive is about to start. To date, through a joint effort bridging generations of Cal Alums, we already have approximately $3.5 million in pledges! We think a realistic goal is $10 million by January 1st! Our efforts will also include the reinstatement of women's lacrosse and women's gymnastics, so if you are fans of those sports, your money will be doubly useful!
It looks like one of the Cal baseball players is looking to transfer mid-year pending an NCAA waiver to play in the spring. It will be interesting to see if the NCAA grants him a waiver.
I would think these transfers would likely hurt the "Save Cal Baseball" movement.
http://www.collegebaseballdail...-eric-jaffe-to-ucla/
I would think these transfers would likely hurt the "Save Cal Baseball" movement.
http://www.collegebaseballdail...-eric-jaffe-to-ucla/
Personally I think if the NCAA grants this student-athlete a waiver to play this year they are heaping on the grief for Cal baseball. The coaches worked hard to get these players to campus and they have been highly ranked.
On the other hand this player is a freshman so technically he's never played @ Cal yet. What's to keep the other players from transferring @ the semester and playing some where else this spring? Would the NCAA grant waivers for all the Cal players that want to transfer and play immediately? Seems really unfair to the players that don't have offers to transfer immediately. What a mess!
On the other hand this player is a freshman so technically he's never played @ Cal yet. What's to keep the other players from transferring @ the semester and playing some where else this spring? Would the NCAA grant waivers for all the Cal players that want to transfer and play immediately? Seems really unfair to the players that don't have offers to transfer immediately. What a mess!
It is a mess.At least, if there is a at least, the players will be able to transfer without the sit out a year rule, if the program folds.I think this player should not have to sit.They should of known the program is in this much trouble, and given the players an opportunity to leave.I feel bad for the team if players leave, as they were really good last year.Just so much uncertainty for the frosh players.And then the Juniors who dont get drafted, it will be hard for many of them to get scholarships.
I personally think the way this AD dealt with this, was horrible.
I personally think the way this AD dealt with this, was horrible.
quote:Originally posted by CaBB:
On the other hand this player is a freshman so technically he's never played @ Cal yet. What's to keep the other players from transferring @ the semester and playing some where else this spring?
CaBB - This player would have to sit in the spring if not granted a waiver. It doesn't matter that he is a freshman and has not played a game yet, if you have practiced with the team more for more than a certain number of days (I believe it is 15 days) then you are on the team for this year.
The NCAA rules do not allow mid-year transfers for baseball (and be eligible to play in the spring). Any student that transfers mid-year would need to be granted a waiver. I think it will be interesting to see if the NCAA grants that waiver.
All players will be free to transfer next fall and not sit a year because Cal athletes will fall under the non-sponsored/discontinued sports exemption. However ,the rules as currently written do not allow mid-year transfers, even when a sport is being discontinued.
Cheapseats- great explanation but the NCAA may indeed grant him a waiver so he can play immediately. How many other players will transfer this year and decimate the existing team? Seems like a double whammy for the teams last year. Very unfortunate all the way around.
Yes, the NCAA might grant a waiver - if they do I think it will start an avalanche of players leaving the program mid-year. I could be wrong but I do not think the waiver will be granted unless there are extenuating circumstances that the public is not aware of.