UC Berkeley announced yesterday that it will be dropping four team sports — baseball, men’s and women’s gymnastics, and women’s lacrosse — in a cost-saving move. It also plans to drop men’s rugby from varsity to club status.
The school allocated more than $13 million to athletics last year, and it’s looking to bring that number down to $5 million by 2014. Yesterday’s cuts are expected to save the university $4 million next year.
According to the Daily Cal, Berkeley’s student newspaper, the criteria used to decide which teams to dump included
“financial impact, the team’s history of competitive success, the department’s ability to comply with Title IX and the principles of gender equity, donor impact, opportunities for NCAA and Pac-10 success, contributions to student-athlete diversity, student-athlete opportunities, utilization of support services, contributions to the Directors’ Cup, contributions to the athletic department mission and prevalence of local and regional varsity competition.”
I’m curious what y’all think. Is cutting athletics an appropriate response to the current crisis, or is it yet another example of balancing the budget on the backs of the students? And if cuts to sports are the way to go, are these criteria good ones?
studentactivism.net 
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 29, 2010 at 11:09 am
scootles7
Based on the prevalence of tuition hikes and fee increases, I think cuts in athletics are appropriate – but that doesn’t address the root of the financial issue and that doesn’t prevent a large portion of the effects from being laid on students.
In some institutions, athletics are a major part of the school from revenue to student body support. To cut athletic funding by so much (even if it’s over a few years’ time) is pretty drastic for students and – sometimes – for the school as a whole. This is keeping in mind that Berkeley is not the most athletics-appealing institution in the region though. It might work out great there – but cutting sports at some schools could prove detrimental and not worth the money saved.
September 30, 2010 at 9:11 am
drosen2
Honestly, I don’t know what to think of it. On the one hand, it does save the school money that they could use on other things such as academics (which I honestly think are more important than sports). However, that is a lot of money and sports to cut, which isn’t necessarily fair to the students who play them and succeed. And, in the end, this is placing the results of budget balancing on students, regardless of whether athletics or academics are cut. If given a choice, I believe that academics should stay though.
It all really depends on the individual school as well, like the above poster said. At a school like mine, sports are very important and bring in a lot of money for the school (and I have seen the sports budget, it is really big). It might be what is best for Berkeley ( / their board of directors).