I agree that having an Equestrian team fit with the UCD heritage/culture, and I would love to have it continue.

Unfortunately, I also understand that Equestrian is an expensive sport to operate. In addition to the cost of scholarships, uniforms, coaching and support staff salaries, general equipment similar to all other varsity sports there are equine-athlete costs and facility costs. Just feeding one horse, depending on the price of hay, can $5,000 or more a month. There's also another $1500/month per horse for routine veterinary and farrier care. And there's no skipping on any of this if you want the horses ready for competition.

So I can easily see that the savings by replacing Equestrian with Stunt will be significant.

Australian Anna Bassett, a member of the Aggies' 2026 recruiting class, was on the bench last night dressed like the players currently out with injuries. I wonder if she's just making a visit, or if she'd en early enrollee? If she's enrolled, she can practice with the team, which would put her ahead come next season.

I wonder if there's any chance that fellow Aussie 2026 recruit, Rebecca Donnelly, might join her?

Rough shooting night! 15% from 3; 29% from the field. Looks like everyone has lost confidence in their shot. And we miss soooo many layups. It’s an issue my wife and I scratch our heads over every year. Do we not practice layups? That alone cost us the game tonight.

Just really choppy play, no flow on offense. Norris doubled or tripled in the post every touch…they were grabbing at the ball, but Megan was getting called for offensive fouls. While knockdowns of Bennet and Baker not called. Monster night rebounding.

An agent is apparently more ethical than his client.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/47551538/agent-drops-demond-williams-jr-amid-qb-portal-dispute

100% agree with you that the current situation isn't optimal. I'm going further - the current situation isn't sustainable. I'm not just talking about Cal and Stanford playing in the ACC, which I agree is ridiculous.

I'm talking about the current business model for all of college athletics. I also agree that a radical shift needs to happen - and I think it probably will happen. Just NOT the shift you propose.

In FY 2024 (most recent data), Ohio State University had total athletic revenue of $254.9 million, but expenditures were $295.1 million, resulting in a loss of $37.8 million (12.8%). Though the school characterized this as a "one-time event", data shows that between 2019-2024, Ohio State Athletics lost money in 4 of 6 years. During the same 6 year period, Ohio State Athletics debt rose from $250 million to $287 million. That's a hefty debt to service.

The football program, and probably men's basketball, likely were profitable, but I haven't found figures. The other 30 athletic programs apparently generated total losses in excess of $38 million, after factoring in the FB and MBB profits. And this was pre-House settlement. Starting next year, schools like Ohio State will have another $20.5 million in yearly liabilities due to revenue sharing per the House settlement.

That's why Ohio State supported a $2.4 billion private-capital deal between the Big 10 and UC Investments that would have sent a minimum of $100 million each Big 10 school. The deal died last month because of opposition from Michigan and USC. The chair of Michigan's Board of Regents noted that until "runaway spending was addressed", the deal was simply akin to a "payday loan." Michigan and USC were also concerned that despite assurances, it put assets of member universities at risk.

The University of Utah recently took that risk and individually signed a private equity deal with Otero Capital. I've seen articles indicating that other PE firms are interested, including the Saudi Public Investment Fund. PE firms are not noted for caring about anything but making money. Certainly not about funding schools, creating jobs, or providing opportunities for kids to stay in-state for school/sports.

This is the crossroads coming for the P4 schools, and maybe others that want to play in their sandpile: Costs / spending needs to be cut, Business 101 says that nonprofitable sports get the axe. There goes other 30 sports at Ohio State...except oops, there's good old Title IX. Not to mention pissing off the alumni who played those sports or boosters whose kids played those sports.

That's the underlying rationale as to why I don't see a CA Conference, such as you've proposed, as a viable option, be it with your original list of schools, or including starting FB at the UC's who currently don't offer that sport. Your proposal means more schools getting into a P4-style arms race, and I think that's the wrong way to go.

If Mercer's goal was increased enrollment, their own figures supports the UGA study I mentioned. Mercer had a slow increase from 4694 undergrads in 2015 (earlier data not quickly found) to just over 5000 in 2021. Has since shown a decline to 4724 in 2024. Grad students didn't increase until 2023. I don't think grad students come because of football. Figures from Mercer University site.

Maybe in SEC country, having football was deemed necessary to NOT lose enrollment? Maybe the cultural thing.

My posts aren't about success on the field. As Sailorgabe has repeatedly and correctly pointed out, it's a new athletic world out there. Private equity firms are getting into the college athletics business. Some AD's are open to considering a CBA for athletics; Athletes.org has actually proposed one. The college age demographic is shrinking. There are forces at play beyond success on the field, pitch or court. Those may very well be the determinants when it comes down to keeping or cutting an athletic program.

Many of those have been at schools (i.e. Roanoke College) whose declining enrollment may start putting the survival of the Schoo itself at risk. They are hoping to better compete for a declining college-age demographic. They have to try almost anything. The jury is still out on whether any enrollment gains will be lasting; the early studies (i.e. University of Georgia) say probably not, but still up in the air. Not sure that any have been done on improvement in campus spirit. Articles that tout the benefits are mainly on football websites, so definitely biased.

Other places like UTRGV, or University of Rio Grande< I think it's cultural...that football is a necessary part of the college experience. My grandson would agree; he's on a full academic scholarship, completely unrelated to financial need at CSUDH and is hoping to transfer to USC to better experience Trojan football. Which he does already...hasn't missed a home game in two years. Glad it's my son and daughter-in-law who will foot that bill.

And your point about them being lower level is well taken. I bet few of those schools are putting big bucks into facilities, or coaching staffs, or athletic scholarships. So maybe it's a capital risk with little downside. Many are using local high school facilities (which they rent per use); others like Whittier,. (UCD played them back in the day...it was my first road trip) may be using facilities that are still on campus.

Regardless of level. new programs face immense financial pressure - expenses for coaching salaries, facilities, equipment , and travel. And that's the rub - anyone who drills down into athletics will tell you that the basic problem in college athletics is not revenue. It's spending. And new football programs will be a new line item expenditure, taking resources that could be used elsewhere. At some point, if you're on a Board of Trustees, your fiduciary responsibility kicks in. If the new football programs don't produce the desired outcome within a short period of time, I don't think most of them survive.

Just my opinion.

You may “not [be] opposed with creating football programs at UC Merced, UC San Diego, etc.”, but I’m pretty sure those campuses have zero interest. Riverside and Santa Barbara dropped their FB programs decades ago for financial reasons; Riverside seriously considered cutting ALL athletics a couple of years ago for the same reason. Irvine, San Diego and Santa Cruz have never shown any interest in football. Merced is working to grow what little they have into competitive programs.

Football is the single most expensive program to maintain, let alone initiate, and bring up to par with UCLA and Cal. Most athletic departments already operate at a deficit, including all 7 of the UC campuses that compete in D1. While I doubt that either UCLA or Cal are ready to do so, my bet is that five years hence, there’s likely to be fewer college football programs than there are now. Highly doubt there will be more.

Then they need to upgrade to an intelligent AI platform.

Below are the first two bullets from the game recap on the UCD website. Great examples of the absolutely atrocious writing we’re continually treated to. Don’t even get me started with what’s wrong with them.

The first period was a defensive battle, with both teams putting 15 points each on the board.

After seeing Epps take the first six points of the contest, the Roadrunners responded with back-to-back buckets to push them up 13-6.

Embarrassing! If athletics is the “front porch” of the university, shouldn’t our web pages demonstrate that we employ the kind of competent, educated, people that UCD supposedly graduates?

The Ags grind one out in Bakersfield. Nya Epps carried the offensive load, then Norris got going in the second half to help out. Neither Bennett nor Sussex got in the groove, which is typical of games where we struggle - seems we need 3 of the 4 hitting, or it’s a slog. Baker scored 5 in the 1st quarter, but was quiet the rest of the way.

Also good to see Tsami and Baker get some points off the bench.

An interesting post, like many in this thread that are focused on the future of college athletics. I completely agree with you that the collegiate athletic environment has changed quickly and drastically. I also agree that it’s become more of a financially driven business than a culture-building program within a university. Unfortunately, the business model the power conferences and others are pursuing is unsustainable. We all know that.

But, regarding your post, I don’t see a “California Conference” being more than an intriguing blog post. The schools on your list are too diverse in the following areas:

1 - Mindset / Culture
2 - Disparity of facilities
3 - NIL/Booster $$

None of those will conceivably change within the next decade.

She's had therapeutic tape on the back of her knees all year. Most games she seems to play through it, but she's been a non-factor a couple of times.

For a while only Sussex was getting rebounds. I thought Theoni Tsami looked the best she has all year. I'd almost like to see her get a start at the 4, which I think is her natural position, and bring Young off the bench to back up Norris.

Well that was a truly awful outing. UNC certainly was decent, but if the Aggies even brought their B game, I think we would've won. UNC did have the kind of physicality that UCD always seems to struggle with. We're like a ballet troupe trying to dance in the mosh pit.

Remember hat when these guys came to Sac, the mantra was, "One year can change your life." These guys apparently feel that last years showed they are worth more than Sac can offer to a higher level program than the Hornets.

Last season obviously changed things for the guy who recruited them. Why not them?

Yeah, I assumed it would be a paid announcement, and was wondering about the cost. My post was definitely vague on that point. :>(

What would it take to have a promo for AST on the scoreboard in UCU Pavilion during basketball games this season?

And maybe a CBS?

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/47247619/college-athletic-directors-collective-bargaining-ncaa-future

The next private equity domino...

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/47267088/utah-private-equity-college-sports-otro-capital