Prologue
Beginning as an agricultural extension of UC Berkeley, 102-year old UC Davis has developed into an academic powerhouse. World famous programs in Agriculture, Biology and Viticulture, plus a Law School, a Veterinary School and a Medical School; today UC Davis is one of the top 10 public universities in the country and 38th best university in the world. (1)
For most of UC Davis’ history, the athletic program was Division II, based on an educational model and was successful. For example, men’s water polo appeared three times in the National Tournament (during the period of the 8 team tournament). But of all athletic teams at Davis, football was considered its crown and glory. From 1970 until 2003, Aggie football earned a win-loss record of 270-77. “Aggie Blue” produced 33 consecutive winning seasons and for home games, on Saturdays, over 7,000 fans filled Toomey Field (2) to enjoy some of the best DII football in the country. With 30+ years of football dominance, rumblings began on campus in the late 1990’s, rumblings from supporters and reinforced by former Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef; time was coming for Davis to play with “the big boys”.
The Move, the 8 Core Principles and the Students
In March 2003, Chancellor Vanderhoef said “the Division I Big West Conference offered a better competitive fit than Division II, where schools average 4,000 students -- compared to UC Davis' 22,000 undergrads -- and where former Division II competitors are dropping sports or moving to Division I”(3). The decision to move from DII to DI was controversial, resulting in vigorous debates on campus. At one point, Dr. Kevin Hoover, an economics professor (currently at Duke University), said "What connection does the quasi-professional D-I sports have to the academic and research missions of the university? None"(3). Ultimately, the faculty were not convinced, and in an advisory vote to the Chancellor in March of 2003, Academic Senate faculty members voted 556 to 271 in opposition to a move from Division II to Division I (3). However, Chancellor Vanderhoef agreed to the Eight Core Principles that would guide the transition from DII to DI. These eight core principles can be found here (4) and summarized below:
UC Davis must offer a program that does not compromise the university's focus on the academic integrity of student-athletes.
Admissions and graduation standards must in no way be specially altered or amended for student-athletes.
There can be no "tiering" among UC Davis sports, with some sports and their athletes receiving a better standard of treatment than others.
UC Davis cannot retreat from its Title IX (gender equity) progress, but must continue to expand its efforts and compliance.
UC Davis cannot reduce its broad-based program, but rather must seek to add sports.
The athletics program cannot depend for its financial survival on its record of wins and losses.
Permanent core funding must come from students and the institution, rather than from a dependency on external sources.
The athletics department at UC Davis must maintain a formal connection to the mission of the university, including preserving the current teacher/coach role.
In addition to the Eight Core Principles, UC Davis students had earlier voted in favor of something that rarely happens on a college campus—the students voted to increase their fees. This self imposed tax, known as the SASI initiative (Student Activities and Service Initiative Fee) would eventually be used to help the transition form Division II to Division I-AA. (5). Today, the athletic budget at UC Davis is $22 million dollars. UC Davis students fund about 75% of the total. This is a unique situation within DI athletics, resulting in the UC Davis students essentially owning the new DI program.
The combination of student support, as well as the Eight Core Principles, set the direction for the UC Davis athletics as it transitioned to DI. This direction was consistent with the campus’ 102-year history and the campus culture—UC Davis DI athletics would be guided by a philosophy known as “The Davis Way”, a source of Aggie Pride, based on an educational model similar to the Ivy League.
UC Davis vs Stanford: The Farm vs the Farm—The Upset
“Jon Grant stepped into the huddle before UC Davis' final drive and delivered a message to his teammates …….. "What better stage could we be on. We're at Stanford Stadium. We're about to go on a game-winning drive," …….then he delivered, capping a 72-yard march with a 3-yard touchdown pass to Blaise Smith with 8 seconds left Saturday night to stun Stanford 20-17 …..A team making the transition from Division II to Division I-AA had recorded its first win.” (6)
The unlikely events that unfolded on that mid-September evening in 2005, was a reaffirmation to the Davis Athletic Administration and Chancellor Vanderhoef; their push for DI status had been the right decision.
Out with the Old and In with the New
Two events occurred in 2009, events that are important to the evolving story surrounding UC Davis athletics. First, the State of California, like the rest of the Nation, was (and continues) to suffer from the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. All areas of State support were being reduced, and the economic challenges facing the UC system would become historic in magnitude.
Second, a new Chancellor arrived on campus; Professor Linda Katehi. Overseeing UC campuses takes a special person, and during these tough economic conditions, would require exceptional vision. How would the new Chancellor view the campus? What would be her academic priorities? How would she deal with the large state budget cuts facing the campus? From her biography; "a native of Greece, earned a degree in mechanical and electrical engineering from the National Technical University of Athens in 1977. In 1981 and 1984, she received her master's and PhD in electrical engineering from UCLA and soon after began an academic career at the University of Michigan. She remained at Michigan for 18 years. Starting in 1994, Kathehi began to rapidly ascend through the administrative ranks, serving a succession of administrative roles in the College of Engineering, culminating with the position of associate dean for academic affairs from September 1999 through 2001. In January 2002, she became the engineering dean at Purdue and in 2005 was appointed Provost at the University of Illinois (7).
There is no question as to the academic qualifications of the new Chancellor; a world-class academic and a member of several Learned Societies. However, from the moment she arrived on campus, some began to wonder how the new Chancellor, having spent her entire professional career in the Big 10, would view the “Davis Way” of athletics.
The Cutting of Sports
In order to deal with severe and continuing State budget cuts, in the early Spring of 2010 a story was leaked to The Aggie, the student newspaper, that the new Chancellor was contemplating the elimination of up to 9 of the then 27 sports (8). From the outset of the discussion, several sports were considered untouchable. These included all sports required for the Big West Conference and football.
Although many of the teams remained doubtful that elimination would really happen (at least initially), everyone that reads this website recalls the rapid and monumental effort that was made on behalf of the UC Davis Men’s Water Polo program. In the end, men’s water polo was saved, but unfortunately, four sports were eliminated (9). The handling of the entire process was openly criticized, ultimately resulting in a special hearing in Sacramento, in which the AD and Chancellor were called upon to justify their decisions (10). Following a grievance made by student-athletes affected by the cuts in 2010, an outside investigator, in March 2011, “cleared UC Davis administrators of wrongdoing in their decision last year to cut four sports teams.”(11)
Many of us involved in that tense filled period between February and April 2010 hoped that discussions of program eliminations were a thing of the past. In fact, UCD athletic director, Greg Warzecka announced in March of 2011 “By eliminating the teams, increasing revenue and trimming $400,000 more in spending,…. the department should be above water by 2013-14” (11). Although the economic situation of the State has not significantly improved, the athletic program was not receiving State funds, and for several (e.g. Men’s Water Polo), an outpouring of financial support had raised significant funds and plans were underway for total endowment. Other teams were now adopting a more aggressive fund raising strategy, and the future seemed more secure.
In May of 2011, the UC Davis Athletic Director, Greg Warzecka, announced his early retirement. The rumblings of uncertainty began again.
Vision of Excellence and the Dempsey Report
An important criterion for a UC Chancellor is to articulate a vision for the campus they serve. In January of 2011, Chancellor Katehi announced her Vision of Excellence for the UC Davis Campus; “Aided by the comments and suggestions we have received from our campus community and external constituencies, we have developed “UC Davis: A Vision of Excellence,” to lead and inspire our collective journey for the next decade” (12). It is interesting to note that a search of the Vision of Excellence document does not find any mention of athletics.
Following the “retirement” of UC Davis Athletic Director Greg Warzecka, the Chancellor announced that consultant, Cedric Dempsey, had been hired to audit the athletic programs and to provide input for the hiring of a new director of athletics. Dr. Dempsey was the former Executive Director of the NCAA and was a director of athletics at Arizona (1982-93), the University of Houston (1979-1982), San Diego State University (1979) and the University of Pacific (1967-79) (13). He is currently the President of Cedric Dempsey Consulting, L.L.C. During the summer of 2011, Dr. Dempsey would undertake a detailed evaluation of the athletic program; from top to bottom.
On October 6, 2011, the Chancellor, unveiled a new website, announcing the search for a new Athletic Director and providing a copy of the detailed consultant report, now known as The Dempsey Report (13). For the first time, since the Chancellor announced her “Vision of Excellence” in January, the future direction of athletics was now articulated. In her charge to the recruitment committee the Chancellor states; “The new director will be a critically important hire for UC Davis, not only for our Intercollegiate Athletics program but also for the campus as a whole as we aspire to meet our collective vision of excellence” (13).
The Dempsey Report:In a recent article in the Davis Enterprise Dr. Dempsey stated; “The first thing she [Chancellor Katehi] did say was ‘We are going to stay Division I.’ I wanted to show in the report the different levels of Division I, the concept of a business and educational model.” (14).
In the detailed report, Dempsey provides four models or “pathways” to Division I “excellence”. Interestingly, the Dempsey Report does not evaluate or even consider a 5th option, a Division I program without football. One must assume that taking football off the table was at the direction of the Chancellor. This is a critical point, as it provides insights into the Chancellor’s definition of “Excellence” for athletics and its corollary, ‘Division I athletic programs cannot be “excellent” without football’ (e.g. Big 10/Pac10).
Reading the Dempsey Report, one is left with the impression that in order to achieve excellence, a Division I athletic program must have football and basketball, and that these programs must be based on a “business model”. In order to achieve competitive greatness, Dr. Dempsey outlines the need for improving football and basketball facilities (to the eventual tune of almost $100 million dollars). In addition, in order for UC Davis to achieve competitive excellence on the gridiron, it will be important to fully fund 85 football scholarships. Eight-five full scholarships would cost the University approximately $2,600,000 dollars. It should be noted with the projected increases in tuition and fees, this could balloon to over $3,500,000. In addition, operating cost, improvement in facilities, addition of tutors, improvements to the medical facilities and weight training etc will need to be increased. Since the State of California cannot provide the funds, and since the athletic department has no history of significant alumni donations (not to the tune of the many millions required), the big question facing an AD“how would UC Davis even begin to adopt a path to DI excellence?”. Dempsey provides three options, each cutting 5 sports, so that the funds can be diverted to feed the ‘sacred cows’ (i.e. the revenue generators).
What is most troubling is that the Dempsey reports suggests that DI excellence can only be achieved by moving away from or modifying the UC Davis “Eight Core Principles” of Athletics. The acceptance of the core principles softened the faculty and students to support the move from DII to DI in 2003. The “Davis Way” is now being called a hindrance, an impediment to competitiveness, out of step with DI athletics, and more in line with being a “DII model”. The Dempsey Report concludes that these core principles, such as the emphasis on the “teacher/coach” model, the desire to have a broad based athletic program, the philosophy of treating all sports equally, the emphasis on athletes as students first, are impediments to achieving excellence in DI athletics.
It is worth noting that a recent 2010 Knight Commission Report entitled “Restoring the Balance” states that collegiate athletic programs should be: “Rewarding practices that make academic values a priority and Treating college athletes as students first and foremost—not as professionals (15).
In this day and age of decreasing state support for higher education, historic increases in tuitions and fees, the laying off of lecturers and staff members, the elimination of academic majors, the closing of programs and departments and in a period of ever increasing DI athletic scandals, one has to ask; “who is out of step; the Davis Way of athletics or the Dempsey Report and the Chancellor that endorses its findings?”
Athletics: Business Model vs Educational Model, myths and truths
What are the differences in these two approaches; business model vs. the educational model? Basically, the business model looks at college athletics as an auxiliary program outside the normal operations of the University. Athletes are treated primarily as revenue generators (i.e., employees). Student athletes are divided into two classes, “revenue generators” (e.g. football and basketball) and “non-revenue generators”(e.g. women’s teams and all Olympic sports). The common wisdom (or the group think) is that football and basketball are able to provide enough revenue so as to pay for all non-revenue sports. Since football and basketball provide all of the revenue, the University spends a tremendous amount of time, energy and money, marketing and promoting these sports. The result is the common notion that ‘big time’ football and basketball, will produce increased alumni donations to the general campus, increased student applications, and increased prestige for the campus, beyond that achievable by academics alone.
The Dempsey Report is biased towards the business model of Division I athletics, because only a handful of Universities adopt an educational model (e.g. The Ivy League). Consequently the report pays little attention to alternative views and analyses.
Fortunately, those interested in the current debate on the UC Davis campus do not have to rely solely on Dr. Dempsey’s view of DI athletics. The Knight Commission has, for almost 20 years, provided detailed analysis of collegiate athletics (15). In particular the "Primer on Money, Athletics, and Higher Education in the 21st Century" and the 2010 report entitled; "Restoring the Balance" (15) have explored the myths associated with the business approach that now defines DI.
The Knight Commission analyzes numbers that are provided by Universities in their annual NCAA reports. The analyses are an aggregate of over 20 years of data collection. Respected University Presidents and Chancellors, including former UCLA Chancellor Charles Young and current Georgetown President John J DeGioia, have endorsed the commission reports.
Below are some of the myths that have been addressed, and are quoted from "Primer on Money, Athletics, and Higher Education in the 21st Century" (15).
Business model vs. Educational Model
"The myth of the business model – that football and men’s basketball cover their own expenses and fully support non-revenue sports – is put to rest by an NCAA study finding that 94 [of the then 119 FBS] institutions ran a deficit for the 2007-08 school year, averaging losses of $9.9 million."
Revenue to Campus
"Median athletics expenses are rising at an annual rate of nearly 7 percent, but revenues aren’t keeping up."
"There is no correlation between spending more on athletics and winning more . . . [and] increased spending on coaches’ salaries has no significant relationship to success or increased revenue."
Student Body
"Rigorous studies of the subject, however, suggest that there is no significant institutional benefit to athletic success. In a 2004 report for the Knight Commission, Cornell University economist Robert H. Frank, after reviewing the extant scholarly literature, concluded any links to football and men’s basketball victories and increased applications and the SAT scores of the applicants “is small and not significantly different from zero” (Frank, 2004). "
Alumni Donations
Switching to Division I increased alumni giving earmarked for athletics, but there was no evidence it helped general alumni donations."
In addition, the NCAA, has conducted its own analysis and the findings support the conclusions of the Knight Commissions (16) that is,“Less than 7 percent of Division I athletics programs had positive net revenue between 2004 and 2010. In the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), only 22 of 120 schools showed positive net revenue for the 2010 fiscal year, eight more than in 2009.” (16). For the revenue generators the news is not much better, “almost half of the so-called revenue sports don’t cover their own expenses, let alone pay for the non-revenue programs.” (16).
The myths that ‘big time’ football and basketball pays for other sports, adds to the coffers of the university, results in big time donations from alumni, increases the number of students wanting to attend the campus, and improves the reputation of the campus are simply NOT supported by the aggregate data—period.
The Current Debate: The Town Halls
Chancellor Katehi has called for town halls to provide an open forum to receive input about the future direction of athletics on campus. Initially, only two town halls were scheduled. The Chancellor recently extended the comment period to the end of November. Unfortunately, many in the Davis community are suspicious of the Chancellor’s intent; “Does the Chancellor really want our input, or is this just an opportunity to say “she listened (i.e. she has already made up her mind)”?
Thus far the town halls have been overwhelmingly negative towards the Dempsey report. Vice Chancellor Fred Wood (chair of the advisory committee to the Chancellor on hiring the next Athletic Director) recently bemoaned in the local newspaper: “The one thing that is high on people’s mind is the possible cutting of sports, but the one thing we’re not getting — and would be helpful — is to hear the characteristics about what kind of athletic director people want.” (14). The Dempsey Report provides four models for DI athletics at Davis, it treats football as a sacred cow, and three of the four models call for cutting 5 sports, so that the money can be diverted to feed the ‘sacred cows’. What does Vice Chancellor Wood think people are going to focus on?
Following a recent town hall meeting (Oct 26th), attended by Dr. Dempsey, he commented, “I wanted to show in the report the different levels of Division I,” (14). If that is true, why did he not include an alternative model in which a DI program was envisioned without football? Clearly, three of the four models examined a DI athletic program without 5 sports, so why not football? Clearly there are DI programs without football (e.g. UC Irvine and UC Santa Barbara). After one town hall speaker questioned Dr. Dempsey; “if not, why not”? Dempsey remained silent. One can only speculate that the options of the report were set by the Chancellor—who cut her academic teeth in the Pac 10, and who spent most of her professional career in the Big 10—it is quite likely that this Chancellor cannot even imagine an athletic program, cannot even fathom athletic excellence, without football.
But one could ask, what would college life be without football? In 2009 Northeastern University did the unthinkable and dropped football. Rather than a collapse, like most of the ‘group thinkers’ would predict, life after football has been good. (17)
“There has been little or no blowback from alumni or students, as money once spent on football now serves other campus goals. In fact, the number of donors is up (from 19,559 to 21,797) as is the number of applicants (37,693 for 2,800 spots), and the stature of the university continues to rise. (17)
No one is claiming these advances are happening because football is gone. But what is drawing the attention of other institutions across the country is how painless it proved to do what once seemed out of the question — eliminating the one sport that, for many colleges and universities, is considered key to catalyzing school spirit, motivating donors, and building a winning identity." (17)
As recently written in Outside the Beltway; “schools like Northeastern, where football was never played at the highest level and where the school’s academic identity wasn’t bound up in gridiron success. Dropping football, at such schools, is now viewed as an alternative thoughtful administrators need to take a long, hard look at.” (17)
Surprisingly, as the campus wrestles with the direction of its athletic program, the most important voice, the UC Davis students, have remained relatively silent. Alumni, some faculty and parents of student athletes have dominated the Town Halls up to this point. Everyone agrees that the students must have a voice, as they are the major shareholders of the athletic department. This Wednesday evening, November 2nd, will be a student town hall.
Epilogue
As you drive towards UC Davis on California Interstate 80, the first thing you see rising in the distance is a distinguishing feature, the Davis water towers. On an early fall Saturday afternoon, as you walk across campus towards the Schaal Aquatics Center, the ‘pleasant’ smell of cows and horses fill your nose. After a water polo game, where the stands are filled to capacity with students, parents, and local supporters, the fans begin their trek back to their dorms or homes, many on bikes. As you stroll into town to grab a meal at “Burgers and Brews”, downtown Davis seamlessly merges into the campus, and along the way, the most dangerous aspect may be avoiding the numerous students whizzing by on their bicycles. Superficially, the first time you visit Davis, you say to yourself, “this reminds me of a Big 10 campus”. But Davis is not a Big 10 campus—it is Davis.
The final decision has not been made, and this story is still evolving. Those who are associated with Davis, as parents of students, alumni, and community members, can add your voice as the campus wrestles with the future of its athletic program. There is still time, comments are being accepted until Nov 30th, 2011 and you can send you opinions here: athletics@ucdavis.edu
To read more reactions from recent Town Hall meetings Town Hall: Click Here
James Hicks is a Professor of Biology at the University of California Irvine, where he also serves as the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research. His son is a student athlete, playing his third season for the UC Davis men’s water polo team. Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the opinions of anyone associated with the University of California Irvine, the Office of Research UCI or the University of California.
References
(1) http://dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.php?id=13682
(2) http://daviswiki.org/Toomey_Field>
(3) http://dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=7803
(4) http://www.ucdavisaggies.com/genrel/011003aab.html
(5) http://budget.ucdavis.edu/studentfees/special/student-fee-overview.pdf
(6) http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=252600024)
(7) http://news.illinois.edu/news/05/1219provost.html
(8) http://theaggie.org/article/2010/03/11/budget-cuts-could-mean-loss-of-up-to-nine-sports
(9) http://theaggie.org/article/2010/04/19/uc-davis-athletics-cuts-four-sports-to-tackle-budget-problems
(10) http://dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=12812 >
(12) http://vision.ucdavis.edu/local_resources/docs/vision_of_excellence.pdf
(13) http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/initiatives/athletics_director/index.html
(15) http://www.knightcommission.org/
(17) http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/should-universities-end-football/
