The Univ. of California-Berkeley Friday announced that men's rugby, women's gymnastics and women's lacrosse "would remain as varsity programs, less than five months after Cal announced the teams would have to be cut or demoted to varsity club status because of the UC system's financial crisis," according to John Crumpacker of the S.F. CHRONICLE. But school officials said that baseball and men's gymnastics "will not be retained." As of July 1, Cal will be the "only NCAA Division I school in the state without a baseball team." The decision on which teams to keep and which to drop was "based on a mix of financial and gender-equity issues." After a fundraising push on behalf of all the teams, rugby was "deemed to have met Cal's financial standard for reinstatement," and the "resurrection of women's lacrosse and women's gymnastics keeps the school in compliance with Title IX." A Save Cal Sports campaign led by alumni and parents raised $12-13M in pledges, and the school expects $8M of that to be "available to sustain men's rugby, women's gymnastics and women's lacrosse for the next seven to 10 years." Cal Vice Chancellor Frank Yeary said that baseball, which "cost the university more than any other team" with a net annual loss of about $1M, raised $1.5-2.5M in pledges. The school "holds that baseball needed $10 million to be resurrected for at least the next seven seasons." Yeary said that it is "feasible that baseball could be reinstated at some time after the 2011-12 school year, if enough funds are raised" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 2/12). Cal AD Sandy Barbour: "Although we recognize there was some baseball specific money in the pledges to retain all five programs, the amount attributable to baseball was not sufficient to support the program for more than two years" (OAKLAND TRIBUNE, 2/12).
FALLING FAR SHORT: Yeary said that baseball "did not come close to generating enough private funding to save the 119-year-old program." Yeary: "The challenge for baseball was bigger. They needed four to five to six times as much as they raised to have been in a position to be maintained." Barbour said that there "may be an opportunity in the future to bring back baseball, but only if it becomes privately endowed." Cal baseball coach David Esquer: "I believe at some point in time, maybe not in my time here at Cal, that there will be Cal baseball again." Former Cal baseball player Doug Nickle, who helped organize Save Cal Sports, "argued that the amount of money raised in four months should have persuaded the university to show more patience." In California, Jeff Faraudo cited a source as saying that the property where Cal baseball's Evans Diamond sits is "coveted by the university for nonathletic purposes." But Cal Chancellor Robert Birgeneau said that the school "has no current plans for such use" (CONTRA COSTA TIMES, 2/12). In Oakland, Gary Peterson reported both Birgeneau and Barbour Friday "danced around the prospect of the diamond one day being used for nonathletic purposes." They "did nothing to dissuade the notion that Cal baseball, should it take too long to rise from the ashes, might not have a place to call home" (OAKLAND TRIBUNE, 2/12).
LETTER OF THE LAW: In N.Y., Katie Thomas wrote the restoration of women's gymnastics and lacrosse "most likely solves another problem for the university," as Barbour said that Cal "would now scrap plans to make another round of cuts to men's teams to satisfy Title IX." According to numbers the school provided, officials "would have had to cut about 80 men from team rosters by next fall -- and to add about 50 players to women's teams -- to comply with Title IX." Cal "faced this predicament because it had been arguing that it was meeting the 'interests and abilities' of its female student body, one of three options, or prongs, that institutions can use to show they are complying with the law." But the school "could no longer make that claim after it cut women's lacrosse and gymnastics, and it could not show a continuing history of improving opportunities for women, another option." Cal was "not in compliance with the only remaining prong, proving that the percentage of female athletic participants was proportionate to overall female enrollment at the university." Barbour said that the school "planned to continue with its original method of compliance and that she was confident that Cal would meet the requirements of the law" (N.Y. TIMES, 2/12). But CSNBayArea.com's Ann Killion said, "I feel like there's probably been some mismanagement. I think in September they made this statement, and I don't think they did ... their Title IX math correctly at that point. So all of a sudden they come back today in February with this decision, and they've unleashed gender wars where everyone is going to be pointing fingers and blaming Title IX" ("Chronicle Live," CSN Bay Area, 2/11).
IN A TOUGH SPOT: In S.F., Al Saracevic wrote Cal's administration "looks incompetent." The decision to bring back men's rugby, women's lacrosse and women's gymnastics "marked the end of a remarkable ineffective stretch for ... Barbour and her fellow administrators." Saracevic: "In juggling fiscal reality, academic outrage and athletic tradition, Cal's leaders failed to establish a clear path or direction. The whole drama was defined by poor communication and waffling" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 2/13). CSNBAYAREA.com's Ray Ratto wrote the "result only convolutes the situation at Cal," where Barbour is "probably politically weaker but less of a villain than it seemed." Her "failing was that she hasn't found new donor streams to more equitably transfer the weight of so many programs from a university and a state that has its own fiscal squeezes," and for that "she will pay a price in support." But it "cannot reasonably be said that she didn't exhaust all the available possibilities." Ratto: "One can only assume that lacrosse, rugby and women's gymnastics should not feel terribly comfortable. Theirs is a temporary reprieve at best, because the state hasn't solved its issues, and the university hasn't solved its issues" (CSNBAYAREA.com, 2/11).
