Baseball America | Blog | Baseball America College Blog | Esquer Reacts To Cal’s Decision To Cut Baseball

California's announcement that it will cut its 108-year-old baseball program at the end of the 2011 season shocked the college baseball world Tuesday, but nobody was blindsided more than Golden Bears coach David Esquer.

Esquer said he had no inkling his program was in jeopardy until he got official word at 9:30 Tuesday morning.

"It's shocking—that's the perfect word for it. It is shocking," Esquer said Tuesday evening. "Obviously Cal baseball has been around for over 100 years, and the beauty of the University of California is they're a passionate, loyal alumni group, whether they're football, basketball or baseball. That's a trademark of the alumni here, they love their school and are passionate about their alma mater. So there's a lot of disbelief. It's a big statement—it's a Pac-10 school that decided not to have baseball. That's saying something. We think we're the strongest conference in America as far as baseball, and our track record with national championships would probably prove that."

Esquer said his players were stunned when the coaches broke the news to them Tuesday.

"Various emotions. Some are angry, obviously, and disbelief, and there's some fear and a little bit of panic out of some," he said. "It's difficult to hear, and when it deals with their futures, it's kind of hard to hear. We've got a lot of kids committed to play on this team. I told them, if this is the last baseball team in Cal baseball history, we have the opportunity to give them one hell of a team. We have five returning key pitchers, including upperclassmen, and seven of our nine field players are returning. We are all excited to get back to work.

"We've been ascending, we've been to the playoffs two of the last three years. We believe if we can't say after this year that we have been to the playoffs three out of the last four years, we're doing something wrong, because this team is capable of doing that."

Indeed, Cal's program has been on the rise, despite a substandard ballpark that does not even have lights. The Golden Bears have consistently recruited quality talent and have produced quality professional players. Esquer pointed out that eight Cal alumni were on major league Opening Day rosters, and a ninth, Brennan Boesch, reached the big leagues shortly thereafter. The Bears also boast a 100 percent graduation rate for seniors who did not leave early for the draft, and Esquer said more than half of the 30 juniors who have signed have already come back and finished their degrees.

"The mechanics of the job we were strong at: The kids graduated, the kids that went on to play pro baseball did well," he said. "We weren't struggling, we weren't floundering as a program. We maybe needed a little extra to get us over the hump as far as facilities upgrades, but we weren't able to get there.

"We're proud of the fact we've done more with less than anybody else. If you'd have stuck me in the ACC or SEC and given me the worst facilities and don't give me lights, and if I could get that program to the NCAA tournament two of the last three years, I think we'd be considered a pretty strong program. That's a tribute to my staff and the type of kids we have here and their ability to not get caught up in material things."

There has been some speculation that perhaps some of Cal baseball's notable alumni could make financial commitments that could spare the program, but Esquer said the administration told him that is not a realistic possibility.

"It's more complicated than baseball getting enough money to fund itself," he said. "I've got to believe part of it is bringing back an accompanying sport as well, if they bring back a male sport. And will they be able to hire the staff to handle another sport? While baseball may pay for itself, it won't be able to pay to run another program."

So the coaches and players will try to send the program out with a bang in 2011, and Esquer and his staff will do everything they can to help place players in other programs for 2011. They will be able to transfer at the end of the spring without having to sit out a year, and many of them will be hot commodities. UPDATE: There was plenty of confusion at Cal and at NCAA headquarters about whether players would be required to sit out the 2011 season if they transferred at the midyear point, but NCAA spokesperson Stacey Osburn wrote in an e-mail this afternoon that they players who transfer this winter would not be eligible in the spring of 2011. They can apply for waivers, however.

"We're committed to (placing players elsewhere)—that's my biggest and my first concern, that the kids feel like they'll be all right," Esquer said. "Quite frankly for the seniors, juniors and sophomores, i feel confident they can rest assured that they'll be fine. We've got a heck of a class of sophomores that anybody in the country will want, from Justin Jones to Tony Renda to Mitch Delfino to Devin Rodriguez and others—anybody's going to want them. I think the freshmen are a little more worried and scared, they haven't established themselves and aren't sure where they stand on the landscape. They're a little more panicked than the rest."

The decision to cut baseball and four other sports is particularly jarring in light of Cal's ongoing $321 million football stadium renovation project, which began in January. The project was approved by the UC Board of Regents last July but does not include any public funds. It is funded by the athletic department's gross revenues and the Endowment Seat Program.

"Obviously, you think a little bit at a time when you make that type of investment, then you go out and start cutting sports—you can't help but think a little bit," Esquer said. "It shocked me so much you don't really know how to react."

If that doesn't chap your seat, nothing does !

Posted by FSUsteve | September 28, 2010 at 10:25 pm | Shortcut

David Esquer is a quality talented coach, and it is true that he has done a lot with nothelp from Cal's administration. I am sure he will have an opportunity to be successful at a University who sees the value and will support baseball. How can you argue with the amount of talent he has developed who are in the "Bigs" today. How many other coaches have that percentage of players completing their degrees!!!

Posted by Bearfan | September 29, 2010 at 8:51 am | Shortcut

A program that has been around for over 100 years is being cut, that has been successful over the years, has players who move onto Major League careers, yet we keep Water Polo, Soccer, both of these sports must be huge revenue producers to being kept. Gymnastics being cut? That's a sad state as well. I really doubt that the board or athletic officials who make the determination of dropping baseball or softball or any program, ever played college sports and enjoyed the experience of socializing with people on and off the campus because they played for their alma mater. Parents pay hard earned dollars to send their kids to school, and 25 baseball players or more as well as probably another 20-30 students who play the other sports being dropped, is income to the school that the school will no longer and quite possibly the friends that came to enroll in school with them are going to go elsewhere. Athletic programs enhance the educational experience and when you don't give those programs a chance to self fund themselves or partially fund themself and move revenue around from your "income producing" sports like Football & Basketball so that the other programs can run efficiently, you are stating that someone in the hierarchy is getting paid too much to make the determination that 50-100 students are expendable and are taking up space on their campus to get a quality education. The education you are giving for dropping a sport is going to come back and bite your hand, officials who decide to drop college sports programs! THE END!

Posted by Bill | September 29, 2010 at 11:27 am | Shortcut

Just absolutely disgraceful especially in light of the spending on the football program. I understand that football is the major moneymaker for the athletic department but shouldn't some of that money be used to fund the other sports, not just be put back into football?

Posted by Tom | September 29, 2010 at 11:30 am | Shortcut

It's a sad day for Pac-10 Baseball. That's about all I can say.

Posted by Curt Stimpson | September 29, 2010 at 1:18 pm | Shortcut

What I do or can't believe is that Cal softball is not cut along with its baseball program. Is this a Title IX decision to keep softball and drop baseball? I am not even a follower of the Cal baseball program, but I believe this is a precursor of more cuts by universities to their baseball programs. Cudos to Oregon on bringing back baseball, but I hope the trend in Athletic Departments across the United does not mirror Cal's misguided decision.

Posted by Chris Lapish | October 1, 2010 at 9:15 am | Shortcut

Now that all the hand wringing is over, could we look at what caused the demise of UC Berkeley baseball?

It appears there are 4 factors, which should inform college baseball fans – and warn coaches….

CONFRERNCE HUBRIS -   For years, the Pac 10 Conference has just sat back and allowed the talent and coaching to take care of everything. Relying almost exclusively on abundant west-coast talent (mostly Californians) for annual success, the league made virtually no effort to attract fans or build competitive facilities. It saw no need to compete off the field. The formula worked for decades. Now, things are changing. Where teams from west-coast leagues used to be 12 of the top 20 in Boyd’s World’s ISR, it’s now 4-5. The west coast used to be good for 4-5 regional championships; now it’s 2 or 3.

Announcing the decision to cut Cal baseball, Chancellor Robert Birgenau named these major considerations: competitive history, donor support, chances of future success. Cal baseball coach David Esquer should have seen this coming years ago.

ATTENDANCE – It’s hard to develop the donor support Chancellor Birgenau looked to, if you can’t even get people in the stands. In 2010 (an average year, it seems), average attendance was 453 at Cal’s 23 home games. A total of 10,373. Only 7 games drew more than 500 fans. One game drew 111 which is basically parents, girlfriends and a campus janitor with nothing else to do.

Good grief, Iowa drew more fans once the temperatures got above 40 degrees. LSU’s average single-game attendance surpassed Cal’s season total. Even New Mexico drew more for a 6-game series against Delaware State and TCU than Cal drew for a season. Any Wal-Mart can draw more than 453 people to a smoked sausage tasting on aisle 23.

If, sitting in the middle of 7 million people, you can’t draw more than 500 people to a major college athletic event, you aren’t trying.

COMPETITIVENESS –   David Esquer was hired in 2000. He followed Bob Milano, who had taken Cal to 3 College World Series in 12 years. In 11 years, Esquer won about 3 regional games. In 11 years of Pac 10 play, Esquer had just 2 winning seasons. Overall, he won just 22 more than he lost.

He certainly hasn’t lacked talent. Esquer has 9 former players on major league rosters, and has had 57 drafts overall. With 57 drafts, an effective coach would have won a regional or two in 11 years. The athletic director is to be faulted for not having replaced Esquer 5-6 years ago. Look at the assistant coach talent available. It’s hard to believe a Turtle Thomas or Smoke Laval or Terry Rooney or Eric Bakisch wouldn’t have done better at Cal.

RELATIONSHIPS - Esquer failed to build relationships with the Old Blues (Cal alumni), nor with the northern California baseball community. If his image were reduced to a phrase, it could be “Mark Marques wannabe”. The Stanford coach’s legendary intensity is often seen as harsh or rude. When one wins, it’s forgiven. Esquer, Marques former assistant, couldn’t pull it off. He irritated without producing – or inspiring respect outside his dugout.

Two stories in the past 18 months illustrate the point. Esquer fired his most-popular assistant, who had also been a highly successful Cal player. When it was alleged that the assistant had been approached by another school just weeks beforehand and Esquer had asked him to stay at Cal only to turn around and fire him, baseball Old Blues were enraged.

A certain self-defeating stubbornness has always shadowed Esquer. The fired assistant had brought in a walk-on catcher.   Esquer had invested a 75% scholarship in a JuCo transfer. Esquer’s recruit had 8 hits in just 44 at-bats as a Cal player. The walk-on shared catching duties as a freshman, and earned first team All-Pac 10 honors as a sophomore. As of this September, Esquer has yet to have offered his all-conference catcher a dime in scholarship money.

Those are two examples of a persona which prevented Esquer from attracting significant donor support. A former assistant from the CWS years shook his head and told me, “I’ve never heard anyone say anything positive about him. Not once.” In his 11-year tenure, Esquer couldn’t generate funds for more than a couple of batting cages and some meeting rooms. Evans Diamond remains a junior college facility, nothing more.

Looking at the record Esquer had amassed, Chancellor Birgenau must have concluded that, in order to compete for a Pac 10 crown, he would have to spend big for a new coach, and lay out $20 million for a facility without any indication of sufficient donor support.

If the Chancellor dug Cal Baseball’s grave, David Escher gave him the shovel.

Posted by fredj | October 3, 2010 at 4:42 am | Shortcut

Sorry, not buying it! The coach that was fired was ineffective. The University failed on all promised to the program (lights, field improvements, etc.). Esquer was NEVER the problem! The University was… and remains the problem. The about post sounds like sour grapes trying to bash Esquer for payback for the coach that was let go! Shame on you! Additionally, you can't find a better man with more character and heart then Esquer. It's rare these days when a coach genuinly cares about the "kids" the was Esquer does. On the contrary to what was posted, I've yet to hear ANYONE, other than the "sour grapes" wanna be's say anything negative about Esquer. And as far as his time at Stanford…. they won the College World Series his senior year! Why wouldn't he want to (if he even is) follow the path or ematulate what was considered a winning attitude? Pure logic!

Posted by dta | March 5, 2011 at 2:18 am | Shortcut