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.

Speaking of herd immunity, flu shots are now available if you haven’t gotten yours yet. Free with many insurance plans at your local pharmacy.

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.

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.

Were you the emcee who was always rocking the plaid shorts and backwards hat?

Most public land grant universities of our size and prestige category have endowments between $1-3B. There are a few exceptions in the $4-10B range with a long history of donors. Many private schools have much larger endowments because they have been fundraising much longer. UCD didn't really kick endowment fundraising into high gear until the mid-2000s. Before the budget impasses of the Davis/Schwarzenegger years, state funding probably seemed more predictable. For future endowment building, I am aware that Mrak Hall is concerned that we have below average alumni engagement compared to similar universities and before the pandemic they were assembling a team to study this. Not coincidental that they cleaned house at the alumni association. I have my own hypotheses and I hope their study is revealing. The new guard at CAAA legitimately thinks the ticket to wider appeal is holding more Friday afternoon webinars about diversity and social justice.

To that Facebook poster-- while $1.6B is nothing to sneeze at, the annual report says that current year gifts and endowment income represent about 5% of UCD's revenue. Schools like Stanford or Harvard see 20-30% of their revenue from those sources. They also nab a great deal more money from federal grants and contracts than we do. We have similar expenditures to Stanford (and deliver 2x the degrees). We had a deficit last year but they and the ivies scored a surplus because of the bull market. Over the last 30 years, our philanthropic resources have not grown at the same rate that state funding has declined, so anyone who thinks there is a ton of discretionary cash sitting around would be mistaken. But even if we did have the cash, would it be a good ROI in terms of recruitment, revenue, or name recognition? Not likely in our market right now. Same for the Ivies. "I had never heard of Harvard until they bought their way to a semi-obscure bowl game, but now I might apply" said no one ever. But if you're South Alabama, investing heavily in peripherally-relevant FBS football may have reasonable ROI in their market. This isn't really directed at you DrMike, it's more just facepalm at that recurring thought line.

Sure, there are a couple of ways a gift can be structured. An endowment is a perpetual fund that gets invested by University money managers and a portion of the annual dividend/interest is distributed for the named cause each year. The current minimum is $50,000 to start one and it can come from one person or group of people who raise it and it can be increased over time. I believe they distribute about 5-7% a year and skim a percentage to fund the fundraising call center. So a $50k fund would distribute about $2500-3500 annually to the named cause. This keeps the fund healthy in down market years and lets it still grow a little over time in step with inflation. There are many named scholarships that distribute smaller amounts like this. To fully fund something like a coach or professor position, you would need a lot more capital. Generically, UC Davis has an endowment of $1.66 billion held by the UC Davis Foundation, but this is made up of hundreds of funds, some very specific and some general.

The alternative to an endowment gift is a current use fund gift. This is spent in its entirety the year it is given and could be one-time or recurring. For example, if you want to give $2500 every year, but don't have the $50k for an endowed fund, you sign an agreement to give $2500 per year for x number of years and the award ends when you stop giving. Again they skim a percentage, so you actually have to give like $2750 for the recipient to get $2500.

There are also a few capital funds for specific projects, like there's one to fundraise for Baseball batting tunnels.

If you go to give.ucdavis.edu and search "athletics," you will get a long list of funds you could donate to, some endowed and some current use. They don't advertise how much is in any one fund. I don't know how forthcoming Athletics would be if you asked, but I know on other funds the University is coy about their investment details.

One thing to keep in mind is that there is always fine print saying that your gift is irrevocable and the chancellor can redirect to other uses without your permission if they see fit. Not common, but happens. For example, there was an Aggie Band endowment that was pretty clear in that it could only be spent on a student-run band and if such a band ceased to exist, the alumni band would direct its use. When the Band-uh got burned down, the university stole the endowment funds for unintended uses and said the chancellor could unilaterally do whatever he wanted without recourse. After much fighting, the University made a "one time exception" to allow donors to redirect their donation to a different endowment but categorically refused refunds. Again, this is not a common situation, but I was insulted enough that I cut off donating to any endowment funds. If it concerns you that some chancellor in 20 years might co-opt your gift for something you disagree with and you have significant funds, you would need to form a private foundation to carry out your wishes. The University hates that idea by the way, since it takes control away from them.

As far as we actually know, it's just a hypothetical problem to which we have been batting around hypothetical outcomes. This is the only statement I have seen from Athletics:

"To mitigate the impact of COVID-19, we implemented aggressive cost-savings measures and minimized the impact on our student-athletes. We will continue working hard to generate donor support for all of our 25 varsity programs and position them for success when athletic events resume. If your financial situation allows, please consider making a gift today. Stay tuned for additional giving events coming this fall."

@69aggie Interesting read. The point about winning in court but losing in public opinion is indeed a big one. I wonder what the litigation risks are if a season is cancelled? For example, could players sue that their NFL prospects were impacted or could coaches sue for not having the opportunity to earn a championship bonus? Some G5 schools have been talking about suing Big10 for cancelling. Also curious if there were pandemic or similar clauses in contracts with sponsors, venues, vendors, etc. These are probably non-sequiturs at our level of football, but I could see these being bigger liabilities when you're dealing with Saban types.

I wasn't suggesting UCD athletics is racist. The point I was trying to make about future recruits was that communities of any race or income level usually have access to a baseball diamond and some dads who can coach it. If you have the gift, you can become a great player even in less than ideal facilities, so potentially a greater diversity of people have a shot at the team. Seems to me that adds value to the team. Sports like water polo are more limited to high schools or communities that can afford to maintain aquatic facilities. Tends to skew wealthy and frequently white (and for some reason everyone gets the same haircut). Not trying to knock them, just the the reality of the matter.

If you look at UCD enrollment vs state of California, women and Asian students are over-represented while men, white, Black, and Hispanic students are under-represented to varying degrees. I don't have numbers for athletics against student population, but would guess Asian and possibly Hispanic are under-represented.

The online FAQ says if football is played in the spring, season ticket holders choosing the credit option will have first right of refusal to apply their credit to their seats. If you made a Team Aggie donation to secure a certain ticket category, that portion is not refundable and you may either roll it to next season or designate it as a special gift for use now.

Our rosters have a few international students, but I think the point @69aggie has made previously is that we are middle of the pack on some of those sports while the perennial winners sometimes do not have a single domestic athlete on the roster (*cough, Long Beach State). If Tennis proceeded this year, perhaps we would do quite well against Beach.

Maybe this conversation is moot and athletics has their finances in adequate shape. Hopefully. The endowed coach position probably protects water polo, but there's also a non-financial factor that may play -- certainly do not mean to insult anyone by presuming their identity, but if you look at the team roster photos, baseball appears significantly more diverse than water polo. Could be a political (and ethical) problem to cut sports with more athletes from underrepresented groups in favor of less inclusive sports.

I wouldn't use the existence of a facility as any guarantee that a particular sport stays. UOP left a nice football stadium to rot. I do think though Gary May considers football and basketball "front door" sports so probably safe. Field Hockey has never really made geographic sense, although it does seem that there are high schools in Santa Clara and San Diego counties generating players. On the surface Equestrian would seem expensive but we learned previously that the host location provides the animals and looking at the last couple of years of schedule, they often play multiple opponents at one invitational so not really that many out of state trips involved. I also believe there is some "old money" from central valley ranching dynasties in play.

You are correct that solving double bookings in the rainy season isn't always easy. It's not just the games, but the practice times, or even logistics of irrigation and striping. I'm sure it is solvable, especially if spectators aren't involved. There could be practice space on IM fields, the ARC, or new rec pool if recreation activities are still off. But you're right that the juice may not be worth the squeeze unless things dramatically improve. At least college athletes and fans usually have some level of cooperation. As a funny aside, I once learned you can't schedule a high school cheerleading competition and lacrosse for the same weekend because they beat the tar out of one another. The incident report included something about aerosol glitter to the eyes, cleats to the head, and somehow a toilet getting shattered.

Liability is a tricky thing. Similarly, trampoline parks are inherently dangerous and always have you sign a release of liability that often says you relieve the property owner even in cases of the owner's gross negligence. Courts often say that type of clause is unenforceable and that the owner is still liable if they are negligent. Negligence in football might be outdated safety gear or improper turf maintenance, but what is negligence in a pandemic? Organizations are right to be gun shy because it hasn't had time to be tested in court. And we don't know long term effects, if any, so could be a Pandora's box years from now, sort of like how mesothelioma cases bit asbestos companies decades later.

From a liability and lawsuit avoidance standpoint, it isn't always about actual death or injury. Very few people have died from overhearing dirty jokes at the office water cooler, so we can say the risk is low in absolute terms, but it has become such a litigious matter that organizations go to great lengths to prevent it. When you are a deep pocket organization, ultimately "winning" a case is still so expensive it is really a lose-lose scenario and the only financially-winning scenario would have been to avoid the situation that compelled the lawsuit in the first place.

So far the only athletic model that seems to be working is the NBA bubble model. But it's a relatively small population (300-ish players) with NBA money and the full weight of the Disney/ESPN machine behind it. And it's still early. It seems the debate is not really about whether we think COVID will spread among college football teams (it will), but whether that is a serious problem or not and whether risk assessment should be a personal or institutional responsibility.

max age of 70? You just cleared out most of the box seats! Would it really be Aggie Football without a bunch of old guys in khaki pants and straw hats golf clapping?

If anything the Bee needs more local interest stories like this. You’d be forgiven for assuming it’s negative from the title because most of the Bee’s “investigative reports” (not just on UCD) are not much more than one-sided opinion smear jobs trying to sound juicy enough to get picked up by AP.