This is potentially much more significant than it might look. Not having read the complaint, I can’t be certain, but if it asks for an injunction (very probable) to stop the universities from taking student fees immediately and the judge agrees, then thats the end of Fall/Winter sports for these schools. UCD students fees provided 57% of all the ICA or $23.5 million last year. AND, if that happens, I don’t see how ICA comes back in California. The entire system will be damaged beyond repair. Just pray there is a vaccine by Fall.

I believe our student contribution level is not the norm. There have to be options for one quarter - for example, furlough 95% of the department for one quarter.

FWIW, Mrs. Fugawe attended online classes from a major state university (not in California) and they waived most of the student fees with the understanding that if she wanted to use the things funded by them, like athletic events, parking, fitness center, etc, she would have to pay a la carte for them. So that precedent exists out there and honestly makes sense for students who aren't on campus. Universities act like a business and treat undergraduates like customers. In this case, the customers couldn't access the Memorial Union, ARC or athletic events they paid for so it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to want a refund. The problem of course is that athletic scholarships still have to be distributed, employees are still on the clock, and the Rec Pool still has to be chlorinated so expenses haven't dropped anywhere near zero. There are clearly damages, but the question is who should bear them? The customer or the business? In the private world, the business would be expected to bear it and fund it through savings, loans, or a government bailout. The university could be in a tough spot if their slush fund runs dry and the governor doesn't bail them out because a lot of their miscellaneous revenue from $50 parking tickets and $80 sweatshirts has also dried up. If it was just the athletics fee, maybe students wouldn't cry foul but all of the student fees combined are quite a burden and highlight an amoral system where a small quorum of students vote in a fee that sometimes doesn't take effect for a couple years, in essence voting to tax future students who have no say in the matter. A significant portion is debt service on capital projects that probably should have been on the state's nickel to begin with. Seems cheap to have a special student fee to pay for seismic and fire alarm code compliance.

However the judge rules in this case, I'm sure we can expect future contracts we sign for everything from concert tickets to gym memberships to have a pandemic clause in the fine print to try to shift liability to the consumer in the future situation like this.

Did you use that California Aggie article link I provided ? If so, I finally contribured something useful lol.

Thinking of this like a pie if you eliminate the 57% then the 43% that wasn't student fees becomes 100% of the budget, and that amount will be shrinking significantly due to no ticket revenue, fewer donations, sponsorships, etc. If students are shut out for the year you may not even have enough to cover the salaries of the coaches. Now, they'll probably find a way to take care of as many of their obligations in the meantime (move money around, ask coaches to take pay cuts) as they can, but even the eventual return of the student fees doean't allow them to return to normal. The more we discuss it the more likely it seems they won't keep all their sports. I could see a bleak future in which maybe there's only football, men's + women's basketball, and however many women's sports it takes to meet the Title IX requirement (Softball ? Track ?) Or perhaps no sports at all ?
I believe universities whose sports don't bring in a lot of money look at their offerings and athletic scholarships as both a way to gain publicity and attract those dynamic student-athletes who will be enormously successful and donate lots of money. It's a pretty big investment and we'll see what UCD's appetite for this is.

One thing we haven't talked about- will this eventually lead to many universities re- classifying to a lower division ? I don't think UCD would do it, as long as they still have football. I could see some schools moving down to cut costs. However, it's not that simple sometimes. Even though you eliminate some scholarships and pay less for your conference affiliation you don't necessarily cut travel costs. CA is unique in that it has enough universities to almost completely contain Division 1 (Big West), Division 2 (CCAA) and NAIA (GSAC ?) conferences. No other state can match that. Some of these lower division schools elsewhere have to travel a lot. Even the UCSC Banana Slugs traveled to face the fearsome Oglethorpe University Stormy Petrils in basketball.

Everything across the board is going to take a hit. Plain and simple.

East Carolina announced the termination of their swimming and tennis programs just a few days ago. Overall athletic finances were cited. Football is pretty big there with a strong fan base. I think it makes sense, at least there, to cut whole programs rather than weaken budgets of all.

In the case of ECU, "pretty big" is not be confused with "pretty good." Just saying.

ECU actually has a very strong fan base. Probably better than NC State although that, in part, may be because they is not much to do in Greenville. They have had a rough patch in performance the past couple of years and have lost to NC A&T and I think James Madison. I remember them hanging 60+ points on UNC a few years back. They now have the former James Madison coach.