I agree with Finn, a specifically targeted campaign (ie 1000 for $1000) is far more effective than anything that, 1. Sounds like an Athletics General Fund initiative and 2. Might include the risk of one penny going to another sport. This is just how football guys think. Not sure 1000 for $1000 is even feasible with Title IX concerns, but it would be far more effective.

If you designate football on your Champion Aggie donation, 100% goes to football. I’ve spoken to athletics about this very subject.
We need Sanford Weill to get interested ib UCD football :).

Yeah, Weill ponied up today apparently! Someone mentioned a mascot change on another thread, VETS might be the way to go!

I get it on where the proceeds actually end-up, but I know that often times football folks feel like anything "attached" to an athletics campaign is going to get skimmed or re-routed.

I'm seeing all of that and I love it all.

At the moment, its not equaling $$$$$ to the program. Its also not getting 15,000 attendance in a city of 70,000 people.

Its slowly changing.

I guess the point I'm making is, perhaps this would happen faster if the University changed the "show me you all want this stuff" strategy. Its like, they show pretty pictures and sit back and expect the money flow in (and it doesn't). I still don't know how to give $1,000 to Aggie football.

Definitely a slower burn than it should be. I think Plough for 10 more years puts us in a great spot. Talk about someone that can connect with alumni. He almost has a more zen and mature "Jason Eck effect" going on

Here you go:
https://ucdavisaggies.com/feature/champion-aggies-club

There’s also a fund raising group. I can’t find the link but I’m sure Dr. Mike has it.

I sure hope a lot of happens sooner than 10 years since there's a good chance that I could be on the wrong side of the grass by then!

Coach Sochor helped tab and nurture Plough for the future. I hope we have some young coaches in mind for the future, Cody Hawkins might be one.

I don't see any designation for this sport or that sport. Have no trust that my money will go solely to football, but I'll keep diving into it.

The Big Mountain Podcast has a section today covering Rocko and UC Davis' status:
https://www.youtube.com/live/MN9nqyv9Zbk?si=38BLJIV4HK6pgTIg

Here is the link to the football development fund that is controlled by the program:

https://give.ucdavis.edu/ICAI/SPTDFBE

That's where i donate.

Thank you :)

I occasionally wonder if non-football schools, like UCSD, UCI, and UCSB, have an advantage in raising funds over UCD since these schools can focus on raising money for their basketball program. In our case, the funds get diluted to football and basketball programs.

the short answer is yes with regard to basketball. My conversations I’ve had UCSD is way ahead of the rest of the league with their basketball fundraising. For football, I think the donor population doesn’t crossover

I think that was a big part of the decision for St Mary’s to drop football. The return on investment in terms of public exposure is much better for basketball. Lots of eyes watching March Madness

UCSD is a fundraising machine, period. Khosla is extremely active and aggressive with not only the life sciences companies that have helped that campus expand but also the local community and businesses throughout San Diego. He understands how to leverage those corporate partners and they have done a nice job expanding the relationships to fund a really competitive basketball program. They would be doing even more with a football program but don’t have any real estate.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2026/02/03/sources-mountain-west-nearing-media-deal-announcement/

My two wishes are:

1. No extra subscription fees
2. Easy access to replays

Unfortunately, it looks like extra subscription fees.

seems like a good media deal tbh

Yeah. It looks like a better than expected media deal. I also like that the legacy members don't see a drop-off in payout.

More from the NY Times article:

Many people around college sports have questioned why the Mountain West and the Pac-12 leftovers didn’t simply merge amid the wave of conference realignment that caused four Pac-12 schools to leave for the Big Ten, four more to join the Big 12 and two to join the ACC. Ultimately, after scheduling negotiations between the Mountain West and Oregon State/Washington State broke down, some of the highest-resourced MW schools preferred to join the Pac-12 remnants, believing they could build a better league with leaner numbers. As a result, the set of FBS conferences outside the Power 4 previously known as the Group of 5 will grow to a Group of 6 in 2026.

“I think one league in the west would be stronger, make more sense,” Nevarez said. “But competition can also make folks stronger and lead to more. It is what it is, and we’re ready for it.”