A Raider coached the 49ers ? How about that ?

Editing this post to make it more concise.

It is going to be interesting to see what happens if 2021 Spring sports are also cancelled.

I think the fair thing for the NCAA to do would be to only grant an extra year of eligibility to those student athletes who didn't receive the extra year in 2020, and this would be in lieu of the redshirt season if that hasn't already been used. There are quite a few reasons why there are limits, not the least of which is keeping aimless student- athletes (Van Wilders of the athletic world, if you will) from taking up roster spots and reducing opportunities for others to compete. Really, universities are under no obligation to act as springboards to the pros. If a college promises you a scholarship and it fulfills that promise their part of the deal is done. It's not their problem if the student- athlete misses a year or more of competition due to circumstances beyond their control. No one should be coming to UCD with the primary focus of playing professional sports- go to a CSU or a community college for that.

With previous posted edited this comment was no longer relevant.

So if we have to cut a sport or two how do we do it? By popularity or by fitness and health? As Stanford continues to be excoriated in the press for eliminating 11 mostly “Olympic sports” what do we do if we need to cut? I would say none of the below sports which are considered to be the best for fitness and health. No surprises here:
1- swimming
2- tennis
3- rowing
4- wrestling
5- squash
6- basketball
7- cycling
8- etc.
Notice no baseball, golf, softball, football, rugby etc. it is because these sports do not involve all the major muscle growths of the human body and/or are very intermittent (Football) and some i.e baseball and softball are even somewhat sedentary sports. See cricket which even has tea breaks. If I have infuriated anyone I am sorry, but I did have to do it. So: phase out FH and bring back Crew (if we still have the boats- which are very expensive). Oh, and by the way the FH gals could easily transition to crew because they have extremely strong leg muscles which are a key to good crew performance. Source: Fitness Magazine

If we have rowing, wrestling, squash or cycling they are all at the club & rec sport level, rather than the inter-scholastic team sport (NCAA, etc.) level. Add rugby from your narrative, though not on your enumerated list. (And FWIW, rugby is more like soccer than football in that teams play for a something close to two continuous 45 minute halves, not the 5 seconds of action followed by 30-40 seconds of huddle in gridiron football, but I digress.) Club sports are really going to suffer with fewer students on campus and less money. I think it's safe to assume that the school isn't going to be coming up with a lot of financial support for club, rec, and IM sports. AND the associations that sanction those sports may not do so this coming school year. Field hockey will die for lack of competition in the Pacific and Mountain time zones.

I would not be surprised if, in about 15- 20 years (or perhaps a bit sooner), UCD were to eliminate all intercollegiate athletics programs. In 2035- 2040 the Pavilion and UC Davis Health Stadium will be quite advanced into their useful lives as intercollegiate athletics facilities, and they will be out of date. It will not seem absurd to eliminate the teams that occupy the facilities when the alternative is spending millions of dollars to renovate or replace them.

Another thing that will likely help ease this along will be the decreasing interest in school sports among the students at UCD. It used to be that there was a greater sense that being an Aggie was being part of a more tightly- knit community, and having school pride and attending sporting events was part of the college experience. I could already sense that was starting to decline when I was a student. Blame the internet. Now we can blame smartphones and the artificial social environments they provide. For example, there used to be a time if you wanted to meet a woman you actually had to go to someplace in person (like a party) where people are known to gather and introduce yourself. Now you can swipe your finger left or right across a screen and "get lucky" the same night. It used to be that to be on the internet and be completely oblivious to the rest of the world you needed to be seated at a computer inside of a building but now...

If you don't have any sports Title IX isn't so much of an issue.

Intramural sports will probably survive.

I disagree. Rec Hall was recently renovated and serves many purposes.

UC Davis Health Stadium will only improve, and naming rights return in 20 years.

I do agree that the smart phones, students with $$$ (cars), and imported students seem to have less of a campus connection.

In the dystopian world envisioned by GoAgs he might be right. Somewhat more reasonable is if the NCAA (Very unlikely), the Congress (somewhat unlikely), the State Legislatures (some not unlikely at all) or the Supreme Court (very likely indeed) finally rule that scholarship student athletes are “employees” (see: “workman’s compensation coverage”) of the school or team they belong to or are otherwise deemed eligible to be paid a fair wage for their efforts on the field or court on which they play, then all bets are off for the present scheme of US college sports. This is an issue that will be accelerated in this Covid 19 crisis. If that happens US college football as we know it will be dead. But then we could adopt the UK Bucs system (and I am no expert here at all). The UK does offer athletic scholarships at it’s universities, but they are tied to whether an athlete has qualified for “international” status as an athlete. Yes, and the UK does not have US college football to deal with. Unfortunately, we do.

I'm not saying the facilities are lacking now. My point was that in 15- 20 years they will need some serious work done- normal wear and tear at the very least, and the university will have to weigh the benefits of keeping the teams vs. the cost of renovating the facilities. If student interest continues to decline they have to rely on increased support from alumni and the community to make the events even worth hosting. Even though the students get in for free they still buy concessions and apparel at the games, not to mention the boost their vocal support gives the athletes. If the people who are supposed to care the most don't care...

It makes little sense to spend more money ( large sponsorship or not) for lower attendance and less revenue. I hope they can make it work.

And so go 80% of women's & men's scholarships in 'minor' sports at D1A institutions.

Unfortunately Title IX has to play a role in everything. It's good, and it's terrible at the same time. On the one hand it forces schools to spend millions on programs that generate very little public interest, which can hold a university back from improving programs people care more about. On the other it at least attempts to provide equal opportunities for women to compete and enrich their educational experiences. It would be nice if these opportunities sometimes didn't get in the way of improvement.

For example, anyone who's watched the UCD baseball team at all over the years has seen that there are plenty of flubs on defense (especially in the infield). It can't be just the quality of the players vs. the quality of their opposition. They're clearly not getting enough fielding practice because they're out of sync it seems whenever there's a ground ball to someone with runners in scoring position (especially bases loaded). I can pretty much count on seeing one grounder per game I attend being flung hastily at a first baseman,who's not in position to catch it, and winding up in the dugout. They are limited to practicing in narrow windows of time between classes ending for the day and the sun going down because there aren't any lights. However, I've been given to understand that the program is solely responsible for raising any funds it wants to use for improvements to Dobbins Stadium, whereas I read somewhere that Sac State got money from the university to help install their lights. Tough to do with very few actual fans (not 'rentals) It makes a difference- Sac State baseball often practices at night and their fielding is pretty clean most of the time. It also helps Sac State that they have fewer programs, so what money they have isn't spread so thinly. UCD has too many sports programs. So baseball continues to try to tread water in perpetuity it would seem.

I also have to say that the women's sports at UCD, with the exception of basketball, do not have very wide appeal. It's not really the coaches or players' fault. It's the sports and the "private club" atmosphere, like if you're a member of the public that just strolled in off the street that you're a bum or some sort of creep that's just there to ogle the student athletes. This is coming from the other fans- I have rarely felt welcome at any women's sporting events other than basketball (especially not volleyball) And I'm talking about when I was a student. Just my opinion. Others may have different experiences

so many Title IX problems would be solved if football was not considered in the equation or if women’s football was a viable endeavor.

Has a price tag or priority level ever been indicated for lighting Dobbins? I’ve done some Musco jobs and baseball is probably the most expensive to light. Not so bad at recreational light levels like 40-60 foot candles and 70% uniformity (number of bright or dark spots). Getting up to HDTV standards like 120 FC and 90%+ uniformity escalates dramatically. And LED requires uplighting in the outfield, which needs a waiver from dark sky laws. I’ve also had costs explode getting that kind of power to sites or dealing crazy wind or seismic requirements. From a facility standpoint, baseball is inefficient because the women’s equivalent (softball) requires a totally different type of facility - shame on whoever came up with that 100 years ago.

As far as private club atmosphere, you’re not wrong. Back in the day the Band-uh would occasionally turn up at obscure sports matches. I think soccer appreciated us, gymnastics less so.

What if ... ICA gender participation was proportional to Intramural participation levels? (Men participate at a higher rate?)

What if... Dobbins was built right away, not slowed down by gender equity politics? Costs skyrocketed while the campus drug its feet, and the Dobbins family threatened to cancel the donation. The result was a scaled down facility. Would earlier construction have allowed for lights?

What if ... women's coaches logged similiar hours (fundraising) to the men's coaches who got the baseball and soccer fields built?

We can be thrilled that we have the Athletic Performance Facility funded, Rec Hall & Aggie Stadium.

1. What you describe is the third prong of IX, when athletics can be disproportionate because you can quantitatively demonstrate you are meeting demand and the demand is not proportionate. This is probably the hardest prong to document and defend. I’m sure the modern interpretation of title IX is more extreme than the authors intended.

2. As I understand Dobbins was largely built by weekend volunteers, which couldn’t happen in today’s litigation world. I design and build these kind of facilities for a living. It is never cheaper to halfass it upfront and finish later. Some previous administrations have been professionally incompetent at managing capital projects, like when they tripped over their own feet all the way through the Aggie Stadium project setting cash on fire.

3. Not sure if Coach Swimley types exist at this level anymore. But women’s sports facilities do get a financial boost from Marya Welch, which funded the LaRue Field refurb.

4. Indeed we are fortunate to have the Pavilion, which opened 43 years ago. A modern facility that size would cost $100-150M today. Hopefully the new performance center turns out well.

. You're both right about Dobbins Stadium. Community Stadium was built largely with volunteer labor. The Dobbins gift paid for improvements, such as the front gate, the ticket booth, the stairs, pressbox, concession stand, and permanent restrooms. This came near the end of the Division II era. Back in the DII days and prior to the donation I would have ranked Community Stadium as the fourth best in the CCAA (after Chico State, UC Riverside, and CSU San Bernadino). Now with the improvements and current CCAA configuration Dobbins would probably be the best in that conference. The wildcats and coyotes have let their stadiums go a little bit since they lost their respective minor league teams

I'm fine w/softball getting a big upgrade- La Rue Field really needed it. I haven't seen a game there in almost 20 years, but when I did it was just a set of bleachers that didn't really provide a good view of the game. It was ok for D- II, but barely.

As long as you weren't disrupting the gymnastics match one would think the band- uh would be quite welcome. Probably doubled the home attendance for that game at least- lol. Gymnastics was not a sport that I enjoyed.

I think the inhospitable private club atmosphere is primarily the fault of some of the student- athletes' parents/relatives that attend. In the absence of any regular community member or student attendance they seem to think they own the place.
And outdated ideas about women probably contribute. I get the impression some of the regulars take it upon themselves to be unofficial bouncers and keep the women safe, which they don't need- they're adults equally capable of protecting themselves. You attend a men's sporting event and the parents are only too happy to volunteer all sorts of things about their sons after you've merely exchanged basic pleasantries of any conversation between two adults.

I saw this kind of thing during summer sessions when I was a student. We had to share the Cuarto + Castilian DC's with those annoying convention visitors, as well as those voleyball and cheer camps. The other male students and I couldn't go a single breakfast without ugly glares from parents. Excuse us, folks. We're actually students here- you and your precious daughters are the ones invading our turf....

I was hearing a seven- digit pricetag for baseball lights some time ago. A big problem for fundraising is that hardly any baseball alumni make good money in baseball. They'll have good careers in other things, and probably make sizable donations to the university, but large monetary donations to baseball specifically. UCD doesn't have a Steven Schott (Santa Clara player and former A's owner) or Tony Gwynn to fork over lots of money. Daniel Descalso may be a millionaire now, but it's not at the crazy rich level where he could easily afford to pay for everything that would turn Dobbins into a top- rate facility.

Aggie baseball is first class and has a great tradition. For all of its “built by volunteers” issues, Dobbins is an impressive collegiate baseball facility. As I recall, it and the nearby soccer field (also “volunteer built’) had to be built, as State financed facilities, to CalTrans Specifications which at the time were unknown to the volunteers and were really difficult and very expensive (curbs had to adhere to state highway specs!) to deal with to by the “amateurs” but they did IT! AND these “amateurs” were smart enough to put in the infrastructure for future LIGHTS! This forward thinking should be rewarded by a donor or donors who will finish this project with LIGHTS! We need a formal fundraising effort to get this done. IMHO

Seven figures is probably accurate. You can light a football field with 4 structures but baseball needs 6-8 for even coverage without blinding players. Lights used to be cheaper up front because maintenance was a separate annual contract. Now the business model is to include 25 years of maintenance in purchase price. Musco is just about the only reputable option, and they know it, so they don’t negotiate much on price.

I don’t think we need to rely on Aggies in the pros for fundraising. The big football donors got nowhere close to the NFL. Most of our ex pros are missing from the Team Aggie list.

It wouldn't hurt to have someone with a vested interest in the program and lots of disposable income. If people are just donating to the university and hoping it will trickle down to the programs they care about they'll be disappointed. I think they'll start another women's team people care even less about before baseball gets its upgrades. Women's Ping Pong ? I joke, of course..it won't be Ping Pong..it'll be blindfolded e- scooter racing.

Yes, and remember that a mere coxswain at Berkeley by the name of Dean Witter (1909) who with his financial support propelled that program into the giant that it now is in US rugby. If you really want to see how a minor collegiate athletic program gets its support go to the Berkeley Rugby website. It’s alumni support is just amazing. We can do the same. We have a lot of very wealthy alums. Some have said that they were never even asked to donate. I think that is changing now. It sure better. Remember the great Jack Anderson? He should be the role model.

Yeah, you'd think it would. Maybe the coach had a great lawyer read the contract and get some things added in, but good lawd.

Perhaps the ucdavisaggies.com people have been reading our posts about eliminating field hockey. They posted a fluff piece about the coach yesterday. Yeah, we get it- she's a nice lady. I hate that kind of article, but it's a staple of college websites, so what are you going to do ?

.