About this time a year ago, I was browsing the UCSD Bookstore clothing section and bought a T-shirt emblazoned with: “UCSD Football — Still Undefeated.” Although the shirt was comfortable and very slimming, I attempted to return the shirt for a full cash refund upon hearing the news that we did have a football team and even when we did, we were not undefeated.
According to the UCSD Football Web site (www.gotritons.com), this beautiful campus of ours once did house the glory of the gridiron in 1968. The Web site claims that we played six games in ’68 and posted a proud record of 0-6. If this information is true, then these T-shirts are not and I feel embarrassed to have worn one.
The shirt shames me because I do not want to advertise lies or endorse a team that went winless in one measly season of action. And it’s not like the Tritons of ’68 were facing University of Southern California, like our valiant volleyball team does year in and year out with the same winless results as the football team. Instead, our opponents were Loyola University, Nevada Southern University, Cal Western University, University of La Verne, St. Mary’s University and the California Institute of Technology.
Nevada Southern actually became the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a current Division-I football loser, and La Verne still boasts a Division-III squad, but Cal Tech was one of the worst programs in the nation when we lost to their Beavers in that one fateful season. Cal Tech had not won a game in four years, but we let them slip away with a 34-31 win in our last game.
The likelihood and cost of a UCSD football program is detailed on the Web site: “The costs associated with starting a team could vary depending on what facilities need to be constructed. Equipment such as sleds, goal posts, pads, helmets, etc., would also need to be purchased. It could cost $1 million annually to run the team. The largest expenses would be coaching salaries and travel.”
The site also says that we could minimize costs by playing seven games, the minimum number required by Division-II teams, and “playing all other games against local opponents.”
Even with the minimum number of games, $1 million is a lot to ask from an athletics department that constantly fights off debt. The team would also need a field and RIMAC is out of the question due to the soccer team’s priority. Another roadblock is Title IX, which mandates UCSD to add three new women’s teams if a football team is born. Another option is eliminating a men’s team, but no one wants to make a sacrifice.
According to the Web site, if students agreed to a $19-per-quarter fee increase, it would cover the entire cost of the team as well as the additional cost of adding three new women’s teams. This way, if we as students agreed to this $57-per-year increase, we could see a new stadium, a new sport and a new enthusiasm for athletics on this campus. I think that is a small price to pay considering the cost of textbooks, coffee or the $50 it costs to see one game of professional football.
If you agree and would be willing to pay the $57 to see a football team or would like to voice your disapproval, vote on the Guardian Web poll next week to send a message to the athletics department. Although it may seem unlikely, in the 1990s, proposed funding for a football team was put to a student vote; however, the students at the time were stingy, pigskin haters and they voted no. A $25 increase in athletic fees was approved in 2002, but, the money went to other areas of need and not toward the football dream. Now, with the Governator-proposed freeze in tuition hikes, another $50 is nothing, and I think students can afford to pay for something that would bring publicity to the school, fill students with spirit and end our current winless streak.
