Internet culture has a phrase for the moment when the consequences of a bad decision start becoming impossible to ignore: “the saxophones are getting louder.”
At UC Davis, the saxophones must be deafening.
On Jan. 9, UC Davis announced it would eliminate its NCAA Division I women’s equestrian team effective July 1, 2026, while elevating STUNT to varsity status. The university cited a third-party report that stated it had reviewed finances, athletic strategy and gender-equity considerations. Coaches and athletes were blindsided and told “not to fight this.”
This wasn’t a struggling program. The team would go on to win its third conference championship and earn its second UC Davis Women’s Team of the Year award. It consistently ranked among the nation’s best, produced graduates who entered veterinary, agricultural and equine professions, and represented one of the few varsity programs directly tied to UC Davis’ agricultural identity.
And there’s no meaningful alternative for the student-athletes.
University officials have repeatedly suggested riders can return to club competition. That sounds reasonable until you understand the realities of collegiate equestrian. Most club programs lack the horses, facilities and roster space needed to absorb more than 30 displaced Division I athletes. The UC Davis club teams no longer practice on campus because of costs and now operate off-site. Additionally, IHSA and NCEA serve fundamentally different purposes. NCEA is the highest level of collegiate equestrian competition and recruits elite riders, while IHSA is structured around broader participation and introducing riders to the sport.
For many athletes, the loss of varsity equestrian doesn’t mean riding at a “lower level”. It means the end of collegiate riding altogether.
Six months later, questions surrounding the decision remain unanswered.
After weeks of public pressure and questions, UC Davis released the consultant report it claimed informed the decision. Instead of settling the controversy, the report ignited it. Team supporters immediately identified factual errors, questionable assumptions and financial calculations they argued were difficult to reconcile with publicly available information.
Public Records Act requests suggest the decision may have been made as early as April 2025, yet recruiting and fundraising continued. Athletes committed. Families made plans. Donors gave money.
As concerns mounted, UC Davis announced on April 3 that it would conduct its own audit of the financial data used to justify the decision. The university gave itself until June 30 to complete its review. Now it is July, the team has officially lost its Division I status, and the public is still waiting for an audit and answers.
Supporters, however, commissioned their own independent review, which concluded the university may have overstated equestrian costs by more than $850,000 annually and questioned accounting assumptions involving donated horses, internal boarding fees, tuition revenue and fundraising income.
And that is why the saxophones are getting louder.
Universities typically release information that supports their decisions. They do not usually sit on it. If administrators remain confident in their numbers, and if the independent review is incorrect, like UC Davis spokesperson, James Nash, has claimed, where is the evidence showing why?
Their silence creates a story of its own.
The university’s own student newspaper editorial board publicly called for greater transparency from campus leadership. The response did not give additional clarity or answers, it was a letter from a university communications officialdefending the administration’s position.
As a communications professional myself, that’s what we call crisis communications.
UC Davis appears to be relying on a familiar strategy: wait, redirect attention and hope the questions fade. If enough time passes, enough headlines disappear and attention shifts to the university’s (expensive) move to the Mountain West Conference, perhaps the controversy goes away.
But those who helped build and support the team won’t fade into the background because we have poured literal blood, sweat and tears into making a successful program.
That’s why this is personal to me.
I didn’t come from wealth or the elite horse-show world. I grew up in a lower-middle-class family in Washington state and competed through 4-H on borrowed horses.
At age 18, I moved to California for UC Davis — my dream school because, as a former FFA and 4-H kid, it was the nation’s premier agricultural university and home to the country’s leading veterinary program.
I joined the Western Club Equestrian Team and worked at the Equestrian Center in exchange for housing, helping maintain a facility the university proudly promoted as part of its agricultural mission.
But in 2018, I nearly left. My grades and mental health were struggling, and it felt like the state and school were rejecting me.
So, I made a deal with myself: I had just tried out for UCD’s new DI equestrian team — a program I had helped advocate to bring to campus. If I made the roster, I’d stay. If I didn’t, I’d take it as a sign to leave.
A phone call offering me a roster spot changed my life. I stayed, changed my path and graduated. I built relationships, a career and a future.
None of it would have happened without the opportunities created by the team and UC Davis Athletics.
When UC Davis elevated equestrian to Division I status in 2018, it promised to invest in women’s opportunities. Today, a championship program is gone, the opportunities it created are disappearing, and the transparency the university promised remains nowhere to be found.
Until the UC Davis administration faces the music, releases its audit and answers the thousands of calls and emails it has ignored, the missed deadline and unanswered questions will continue to erode public trust.
UC Davis must acknowledge its mistake and reinstate the team. Until then, their silence will speak louder than any press release they hide behind.
And the saxophones will keep getting louder.
Olivia Russell-Burke is a UC Davis alumna and former member of the UC Davis’s inaugural NCAA Division I equestrian team. She now works for a public affairs and communications firm in Sacramento.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
I suspect that there aren’t enough people (even on campus) who care about a women-only competitive equestrian team, formed less than 10 years ago. Especially not if it’s costing “everyone else” money to support it (e.g., the university, taxpayers, and/or other students).
My guess is that the number of “saxophone players” isn’t increasing as a result of this forced controversy.
Also wondering why this has to be a “women’s only” team, since the horse is the one doing most of the work. Really? A woman on a horse can’t beat a man on a horse?
And if it’s to be a women’s only team, what about trans women?
First, the reason the team is women’s-only isn’t because women can’t compete against men. Title IX requires that schools provide equal opportunity regardless of sex, including in athletics. Football is effectively a men’s-only sport at the NCAA level, with well over 100 male athletes at Davis. To provide equal athletic opportunities, universities must also sponsor women’s sports. That’s why sports like equestrian, lacrosse, and beach volleyball often exist as women’s varsity sports. Nobody asks why football is men’s-only, yet the same principle applies in reverse.
Second, the financial argument doesn’t really hold up. At UC Davis, football operates at a significant annual deficit—roughly $7 million in expenses against about $2 million in revenue, requiring millions in university support each year. By comparison, equestrian has relatively modest operating costs, since the horses are donated rather than purchased by the university, and the program attracts students who pay full out-of-state tuition. When you look at the overall financial picture, equestrian has been a net positive for the university, not a burden on taxpayers or other students.
Whether someone personally enjoys equestrian or not is beside the point. The question is whether the university should provide equitable athletic opportunities and whether it makes financial sense. In this case, the evidence supports keeping the program.
Title IX can be addressed in more than one way, and I suspect that the trans issue is making this more complicated. Volleyball doesn’t seem to need much (at least, not a horse of course).
Also, I don’t see how allowing men on the women’s-only equestrian team “violates” Title IX, unless perhaps it somehow “displaces” women. In fact, if men “aren’t” allowed on the team, that’s a textbook example of discrimination.
Assuming you’re correct regarding football at UC Davis (e.g. financially), that is not an argument “for” female-only equestrian teams. But of course (a horse is a horse?), and those type of claims aren’t likely to be accurately determined on a blog.
If you’re correct that the women’s only equestrian team is financially net-positive, there’d be no other reason that I’m aware of for the university’s actions.
But I’m pretty sure that this is a “niche” activity, and that the elimination of it doesn’t impact the vast majority of students. (From the article, it sounds like it would continue anyway, at a lower level.)
Not a defense of football, but that attracts a far larger audience. A much more high-profile sport, including its own stadium for spectators.
At the very least, I’d suggest that if the team continues in some manner, that they stop banning men. (It’s not a good look, and appears to be more of a sorority or club, than a sport. Not even sure if it’s legal to ban men on such teams.)
Ron, in one respect you are correct, the elimination of the D1 Equestrian team does not affect many on campus (myself included). On the other hand, you are incredibly incorrect. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Although this is still about doing right by the equestrian team, it has become so much more. All students, staff, and faculty should expect, and demand, that the University at the very least follows the law. And we should honestly expect better than that. As a side note, please educate yourself about Title IX.
Title IX is not just for women. From AI, though I could post other sources:
“Title IX is a landmark federal civil rights law enacted as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding. This includes academic admissions, financial aid, athletics, and protection from sexual harassment or assault.”
Also, I have trouble accepting that elimination of the equestrian team (not even an elimination, but a return to “club competition” according to the article) is a violation of Title IX. (However, not allowing men on the team sounds like it violates the spirit of Title IX. This does not appear to be a sport like football, where both sexes generally cannot compete at the same level.)
I’d sill like to know if trans women are welcome on the team. (Since this is at UCD, I suspect they are allowed.)
I trust UCD to know more about Title IX than any article writer (or commenter) on here. And if they’re willing to eliminate this particular team, then I suspect they’ve already determined that they’re not violating Title IX.
Nothing to do with “threats to justice”, either.
What we have here sounds more like “entitlement” than anything else. A bunch of mostly white, female-only members of a semi-private club. Can’t help but think of Animal House (the fraternities and sororities that were doing battle with Belushi and company.) Just based on appearance.
I’m not opposed to the club (and don’t care either way). I just don’t like fake arguments. (And this isn’t the first time this particular issue has come up on here.)